Senate Manor Properties, LLC v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
Docket: No. 2008-1484
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; August 25, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Senate Manor Properties, LLC seeks an injunction to compel the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to continue subsidy payments for its tenants while appealing a transfer order from the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the Court of Federal Claims. HUD opposes the injunction and seeks to vacate the transfer order. Senate Manor's initial complaint alleged a contract with HUD, prompting HUD to request dismissal or transfer. An amended complaint claimed a 2005 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA), asserting that HUD was not a party to this contract and challenging HUD's refusal to continue payments. Despite this, HUD claimed it was a party to the contract due to renewal provisions and previous agreements. The district court transferred the case, denying Senate Manor's motions for reconsideration and an injunction, citing a lack of jurisdiction. Subsequently, HUD acknowledged errors in its previous arguments and supported Senate Manor's jurisdictional claims, moving to vacate the transfer order. The district court had recognized that while HUD was not a signatory to the 2005 HAP renewal contract, it deemed HUD a party due to the renewal language and its role in funding. The appellate court has jurisdiction to review the transfer order under 28 U.S.C. 1292(d)(4)(A).
28 U.S.C. § 1631 mandates that if a civil action or appeal is filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, the court must transfer the case to another court with proper jurisdiction if it serves the interest of justice. The transferred case will be treated as if it was originally filed in the new court on the date it was first filed. Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo. The 2005 HAP renewal contract identifies IHCDA as the contract administrator, not HUD, which makes payments to IHCDA under a separate agreement. The district court initially found HUD to be a party to the renewal contract due to the renewal of terms from the prior contract; however, the renewal contract explicitly states that terms are renewed only as modified. HUD argues that the modification made IHCDA the contract administrator, thus excluding HUD from being a party. Furthermore, the court noted that if the contract had been assigned, HUD would still remain a party to the provisions specifying its role, but since HUD is not the contract administrator in the renewal, it cannot assign the contract. The district court also asserted that HUD's involvement in funding and oversight does not create a contractual obligation with the property developer, a principle upheld in previous case law confirming that a local agency's role as a conduit for federal funds does not establish a direct contract with the federal government.
Privity of contract is essential for the Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction over claims under the Tucker Act. Since Senate Manor lacked privity with HUD, having contracted with a Public Housing Authority (PHA) instead, the Court of Federal Claims did not have jurisdiction over this action. Consequently, the district court's transfer of the case to the Court of Federal Claims was deemed erroneous, leading to the vacating of that transfer and the denial of Senate Manor’s motion for an injunction. The case is remanded for further proceedings. HUD's agreement with this decision allows for a shortened timeframe for any rehearing petitions and the issuance of the mandate, which will occur seven days after this order. Senate Manor is awarded costs, and its motion for an injunction pending appeal is considered moot.
