Here are the materials in Leachman v. United States (D. Mont.):
federal sovereign immunity
Plaintiff’s Counsel in Frivolous False Claims Act Suit Brought by Former Sauk-Siuattle Employee Sanctioned for More than $10K
Here are the new materials in Dahlstrom v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
Prior posts here.
Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to US on Whistleblower Claims from Former Sauk-Siuattle Employee
Federal Court Dismisses False Claims Act Complaint against Sauk-Suiattle Employees, Awards Attorney Fees
Federal Court Rejects Last Remaining Claims in Dahlstrom v US [wrongful discharge from Sauk-Siuattle]
Here are the materials in Dahlstrom v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
82 Individual Defs Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior posts here.
Tenth Circuit Decides Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States
Here is the opinion in Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States.
Briefs here.
Federal Court Dismisses All But One Claim in Long-running Dahlstrom v. United States [wrongful discharge from Sauk-Siuattle]
Here are the materials in Dahlstrom v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
77 dct order dismissing second amended complaint
Federal Dismisses Alleged Whistleblower Complaint against US re: Former Sauk-Suiattle Employee, Allows 30 Days to Refile on Free Speech Claims
Here are the materials in Dahlstrom v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
Tucker Act Breach Claim against US over Keepseagle Settlement Dismissed
Here are the materials in Labatte v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Split Tenth Circuit Panel Rules HUD Illegally Recaptured NAHASDA Funds but Tribes Cannot Recover
Here is the opinion in the consolidated appeal captioned Modoc Lassen Indian Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
An excerpt from the lead opinion:
These consolidated appeals arise from a government agency’s decision to recapture, via administrative offset, funds that the agency allegedly overpaid to multiple grant recipients. The grant recipients brought suit in federal court, arguing in relevant part that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds without first providing them with administrative hearings. The district court agreed and ordered the agency to repay the grant recipients. The agency now appeals that order.
If these underlying facts sound relatively straightforward, it’s because they are. But they nevertheless give rise to three legal questions that are decidedly less so: (1) did the agency recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposed a hearing requirement, thus rendering the recaptures illegal; (2) if the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to such a statute or regulation, did it have authority to recapture the alleged overpayments at all; and (3) if not, must the agency reimburse the grant recipients for the amounts it illegally collected?
In answering the first of these three questions, the panel unanimously agrees that the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposes a hearing requirement. Thus, we agree that the district court erred in ruling that the recipients were entitled to hearings before the agency could recapture the alleged overpayments.
But that’s where our unanimous agreement ends; the remaining questions divide the panel. Ultimately, two members of the panel agree that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds via administrative offset. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order that characterizes the recaptures as illegal. Nevertheless, two other members of the panel agree that if the agency no longer has the recaptured funds in its possession, then the district court lacked authority to order the agency to repay the recipients. Thus, we reverse that portion of the district court’s order and remand for further factual findings.
Briefs:
