Background
Pamela and James Bennett appealed two decisions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court had denied their motions for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and denied their motion for recusal of the presiding judge. The Bennetts had previously filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, and the Little Tucker Act. They alleged that a consortium of attorneys and judicial participants violated their rights during foreclosure proceedings and that the FBI breached a duty to investigate their RICO allegations.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that its jurisdiction depended entirely on whether the district court’s jurisdiction was based on the Little Tucker Act. The Little Tucker Act requires a claim to be founded upon a money-mandating source of law, such as a contract, statute, or regulation. The court analyzed whether 28 Code of Federal Regulations section 0 point 85 subsection a mandated compensation and found it merely set forth general functions of the FBI Director without creating a fiduciary duty or mandating payment. The court also found that a Los Angeles Times article regarding an FBI hotline did not constitute a valid offer, acceptance, or consideration for a contract. Consequently, the court concluded there was no source of substantive law mandating compensation and no valid contract with the United States.
What it means going forward
The dismissal prevents the Bennett plaintiffs from pursuing their claims against the United States and other defendants in the Federal Circuit, leaving the district court’s dismissal of their amended complaint in place.