G. RICARDO SALAS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

9th Cir. | 1967-10-23
No. 21401
384 F.2d 922 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1967) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The District Court properly dismissed the action because the claim exceeded the Tucker Act's jurisdictional limit and belonged solely to the Territory of Guam.


Facts & Procedural History

A citizen and taxpayer of Guam sued the United States, alleging the Government of Guam failed to recover over $10,000,000 in transportation and housin…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The appellant is a citizen and taxpayer of the Territory of Guam. 48 U.S.C. § 1421d(c) provides, in effect, that specified transportation and housing expenses of certain officers and employees of the Territory shall be borne by the United States. Since fiscal 1953, failure of Congress to appropriate funds for the expense has necessitated its payment by the Territory. Appellant’s suit against the United States was presented as a class action. He alleged that the Government of Guam has failed to institute legal action to recover the amount, over $10,000,000, and that it would be useless for him to request that it do so. His particular interest in thé claimed obligation, like the interest of his fellow Guamanian taxpayers for whom he purported to act, is not measurable. District Court jurisdiction was invoked under provisions of the Tucker Act,1 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2), and the Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1424(a).

The Tucker Act limits the jurisdiction of the District Court to “[a]ny other civil action or claim against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount * * * ” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2). While approximately one-half of the claimed amount would appear to be barred by lapse of time (28 U.S.C. §§ 2401, 2501), it remains vastly in excess of the maximum jurisdictional amount prescribed by the Tucker Act. Furthermore, the claim, as presented, was one claim, indivisible and belonging only to the Territory of Guam. None other than the Territory was empowered to assert it. The District Court properly dismissed the action.

Affirmed.

. During oral argument, we were informed that the appellant had first sought relief in the Court of Claims and that that court, under its rule against the entertainment of class actions, had declined jurisdiction.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw