Washington, DC Court of Federal Claims Litigation Attorney Nancie, Roger Marzulla Law Firm

Motion for Reconsideration Wins the Day for Plaintiffs

May 15, 2013

In Anaheim Gardens v. United States, plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims claiming that the Government had taken their contractual right to prepay government-insured mortgages on low-income housing. The case arose after the Government passed the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act, a statute that plaintiffs alleged was intended to “deter prepayment in order to avoid what loomed as a potentially significant reduction in the stock of affordable housing.” [See Anaheim Gardens v. United States (September 26, 2012).]

Chrysler Dealers File Brief Opposing Government’s Takings Appeal

May 14, 2013

Nearly 150 former Chrysler dealers whose franchises were terminated as part of the Government’s TARP restructuring of Chrysler today filed their brief opposing the Government’s interlocutory appeal of their taking case in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is whether the trial court was correct when it denied the Government’s motion to dismiss their case—an issue the court then certified for interlocutory appeal.

CFC Rules That Date of Taking is When Government Sells Cattle, Not Impounds Them

May 13, 2013

In Martinez v. United States, the plaintiff claimed a taking by the federal government of his cattle when the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture sold several hundred head after seizing them for allegedly trespassing on federal land.

Read the full article →

CFC Rules That Money-Mandating Statute Does Not Give Rise to Claim for Consequential Damages

May 10, 2013

The Tucker Act grants jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for damages not sounding in tort arising out of various federal statutes. But in order for jurisdiction to be proper, there must be a money-mandating statute under which the claim arises.

Read the full article →

CFC Rules That Res Judicata Defeats Government Argument That No Property Interest Exists for Purposes of Takings Law

May 9, 2013

In Simonson v. United States (April 4, 2013), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims considered whether the Government’s argument that the plaintiffs did not have a compensable property interest for purposes of a takings claim should be disposed of by summary judgment after an administrative challenge to the plaintiffs’ unpatented mining claims was dismissed. As the CFC noted:

Read the full article →

Texas Landowners Challenge Eminent Domain For Oil Pipelines

May 8, 2013

What’s an oil company to do? Texas landowners who for decades have sat by quietly accepting eminent domain to permit pipelines carrying precious energy to flow through their properties have been getting ornery of late. A slew of litigation has been filed challenging the actions of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the pipelines and has used eminent domain to help the state transport crude for its vital and currently booming oil drilling industry.

Read the full article →

Court Certifies Class Action in Takings Case Arising from Government’s Takeover of AIG

May 6, 2013

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently agreed to certify a class in a takings case, Starr International v. United States.

Starr involves claims by shareholders of American International Group (AIG). Their lawsuit alleges that taking of their property occurred when on September 28, 2008 the Government imposed a Credit Agreement on AIG, which resulted in the Government obtaining a 79.9%-equity interest in the company, and also when it engineered a reverse stock split on June 30, 2009, which denied shareholders a separate vote.

Read the full article →

Accounting Firm Sues Fifth Circuit for Takings of Fees

May 1, 2013

On March 3, 2013, Marcum LLP, a professional services firm that specializes in forensic accounting and financial litigation support services, filed a Fifth Amendment takings claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for the uncompensated taking of their business assets by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries