Case: 14-5151 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 11/04/2014
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MATTHEW J. NASUTI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________
2014-5151
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00398-EJD, Judge Edward J.
Damich.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Matthew J. Nasuti appeals from the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”)
that dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which the court could grant relief. Because we find
Case: 14-5151 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 11/04/2014
2 NASUTI v. US
that determination was clearly correct, we grant the
Government’s motion to summarily affirm.
BACKGROUND
The False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729-33,
prohibits submitting false or fraudulent claims for pay-
ment to the United States, § 3729(a), and authorizes qui
tam suits, in which private parties bring civil actions in
the Government’s name, § 3730(b)(1). After a relator
initiates suit, the government may, notwithstanding the
objection of the relator, seek dismissal after a hearing.
§ 3730(c)(2)(A).
In July 2010, Nasuti, a member of the New York state
bar, brought a qui tam action in the federal district court
in Massachusetts. The Government elected not to inter-
vene and, along with the other defendants in the case,
moved for dismissal. On March 27, 2014, concluding, in
relevant part, that an individual who was not a member
of the state bar and had not sought or received pro hace
vice admission could not maintain a qui tam suit, the
district court granted those motions. *
On May 9, 2014, Nasuti filed the underlying com-
plaint at the Claims Court, alleging a breach of contract
and effective taking of his property interest by the Gov-
ernment in the FCA suit. The complaint asserts in perti-
nent part that the Government breached its obligations of
good faith and fair dealing by undermining and interfer-
ing with his prosecution of the FCA action, and seeks $2.6
million in damages—the amount he sought for himself in
his FCA complaint.
* Nasuti’s appeal from the district court’s dismissal
ruling is currently on appeal before the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See Notice of
Appeal, Nasuti v. Savage Farms, Inc., No. 14-1362 (1st
Cir. Apr. 10, 2014).
Case: 14-5151 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 11/04/2014
NASUTI v. US 3
On July 31, 2014, the Government moved to dismiss
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim upon which the court could
grant relief. The Government argued that Nasuti alleged
a purported implied-in-law contract that was beyond the
scope of the court’s limited jurisdiction. It also asserted
Mr. Nasuti had no legally cognizable property interest in
the qui tam action.
On September 4, 2014, the Claims Court granted the
Government’s motion. Nasuti v. United States, No. 14-
398C (Fed. Cl. Sept. 4, 2014), ECF No. 10. The court
concluded that the FCA did not create a contract that fell
within the scope of Tucker Act jurisdiction. The court also
concluded that, because the Government alone owned the
qui tam claim, no taking occurred when the district court
dismissed Nasuti’s FCA claim. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
We review de novo a decision to dismiss a complaint
for failure to state a claim. Kam-Almaz v. United States,
682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To avoid dismissal,
a complaint must allege facts “plausibly suggesting (not
merely consistent with)” a showing of entitlement to
relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557
(2007). On a motion for summary disposition, we affirm
when “no substantial question regarding the outcome of
the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Applying those standards, we grant
the Government’s motion.
LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir.
1995) points the way toward a straightforward resolution
of this appeal. There, after the appellant’s qui tam action
was dismissed on the pleadings, he brought suit at the
Claims Court, seeking a portion of an alleged settlement.
Id. at 1027. The Claims Court, finding that it lacked
jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, dismissed the com-
plaint. Id. We affirmed, because the FCA could not
Case: 14-5151 Document: 12 Page: 4 Filed: 11/04/2014
4 NASUTI v. US
create “a substantive right to receive a portion of the
proceeds” when “the district court found and the First
Circuit confirmed, that [the appellant] was not a proper
relator[.]” Id. at 1030.
LeBlanc makes clear that Nasuti’s complaint fails to
allege a plausible theory of relief. As explained in Le-
Blanc, for a plaintiff like Nasuti to recover, the Claims
Court would be required to determine that he had a valid
qui tam claim. See id. at 1031 (“[T]o prove that he was
injured . . . would require the court to determine that
[plaintiff] had a valid qui tam suit under the False Claims
Act.”). Because Nasuti did not receive a favorable judg-
ment on the validity of his FCA claim, and because the
Claims Court “has no authority to make [such] determi-
nation,” id., Nasuti cannot prevail on his Tucker Act
claims.
That holds true even in light of Nasuti’s allegations
that the Government improperly interfered with his right
to bring the qui tam claim. As we explained in rejecting
this argument in LeBlanc, “these are tort claims, over
which the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction.”
Id. at 1030. We have likewise explained, albeit in an
unpublished opinion, that the filing of a qui tam action
does not give rise to any contractual obligation of good
faith and fair dealing enforceable under the Tucker Act.
Wood v. United States, 122 Fed. Appx. 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court
of Federal Claims is affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
(3) All pending motions are denied as moot.
Case: 14-5151 Document: 12 Page: 5 Filed: 11/04/2014
NASUTI v. US 5
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s19