TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McCall Stock Farms Inc. v. United States

McCall Stock Farms Inc. v. United States, 30 Fed. Cl. 248 (Fed. Cl. 1992)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Court of Federal Claims · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
December 10, 1992
Docket
No. 90-1003C
Judges
Harkins
Citations
30 Fed. Cl. 2481992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2071992 WL 557778

Opinion of the Court — Harkins

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

ORDER HARKINS, Senior Judge.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(4). Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) was addressed to the declaratory judgment issue in Count II of the complaint. The SBA loan has been paid in full, and the declaratory judgment issue is moot. Argument was limited to allegations in Count I of the complaint. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(4), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, concerned: (1) alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies, (2) contention that plaintiffs claim sounds in tort, and (3) alleged violations of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Defendant’s alternative motion for summary judgment concerned application of the alter ego doctrine to pierce the corporate status and make ASCS payments to plaintiff available for administrative offset so as to satisfy obligations owed to SBA by John R. and Phyllis McCall.

Material facts are not in dispute. Disposition of plaintiffs claim by summary judgment procedures is appropriate.

At the close of argument, portions of defendant’s motion papers were identified and adopted, and the reasons for the decision, were stated on the record.

In accordance with the statements and rulings made at the close of argument,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The complaint alleges a breach of an ASCS contract with plaintiff, and violation by SBA of statute and regulations applicable to administrative offsets. The complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12 is DENIED.

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED.

3. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint. No costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McCall Stock Farms, Inc. v. United States14 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

Most recent

  1. McCall Stock Farms, Inc. v. United States14 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list