Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiondamagesstatutemotionregulationmotion to dismiss
contracttortjurisdictiondamagesmotionregulationliquidated damagesimplied contractmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Methodist Medical Center of Illinois v. Taylor, 140 Ill.App.3d 713, 489 N.E.2d 351, 95 Ill.Dec. 130
View Case »
Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706, 182 P.3d 579, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5649, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779
View Case »
Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911
View Case »
U.S. v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 67 A.F.T.R.2d 91-1166, 60 USLW 2001, 91-2 USTC P 50,315, 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 14
View Case »
Gorham v. General Growth Properties, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 602
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Qureshi v. United States, Not Reported in Fed.Cl., 2024 WL 4003065

Facts

From 1987 to 1990, Ms. Qureshi received Federal Perkins loans and claims to have repaid them in 1996. She asserts that she fulfilled the service requirements for loan forgiveness and is entitled to a refund of $3,806 plus interest. The government contends that Ms. Qureshi's claims lack jurisdiction because she did not identify a money-mandating source of law.

From 1987 to 1990, Ms. Qureshi received Federal Perkins loans through the Federal Perkins Loan Program. Ms. Qureshi states that she repaid her Perkins loans in 1996, and that she fulfilled the service requirements to qualify for loan forgiveness.

Issue

Did the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi's complaint for a refund of her student loan payments?

Did the court have subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi's complaint for a refund of her student loan payments?

Rule

The Tucker Act limits the Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction to claims founded on a substantive source of law that creates the right to recover money damages against the United States.

The Tucker Act limits this court's jurisdiction to 'any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.'

Analysis

The court found that Ms. Qureshi did not identify any statute or regulation that could be interpreted as money-mandating for the purpose of her refund claim. The statutes she cited did not provide for monetary compensation, and her reliance on the CARES Act and other regulations was deemed insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi's complaint because she does not identify a money-mandating source of law that entitles her to a refund of her loan payments.

Conclusion

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi's complaint.

Accordingly, the Government's motion is GRANTED, and Ms. Qureshi's complaint is DISMISSED.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Ms. Qureshi failed to identify a money-mandating source of law that would entitle her to a refund.

The government filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Qureshi's complaint on March 19, 2024. In its motion, the government argues that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms. Qureshi's complaint because she did not identify a money-mandating source of law.

You must be