Holland v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
October 5, 2004, Filed
[*397] OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge.
Following the Court's March 9, 2004 ruling in this Winstar-related case, on March 24, 2004, plaintiffs and third-party First Banks, Inc. ("First Banks") filed a joint motion to join First Banks as a plaintiff and for leave to file a second amended complaint, [**2] which they submitted with their joint motion. Defendant timely filed an opposition to the joint motion on April 12, 2004. Plaintiffs and First Banks filed their reply on April 20, 2004. The Court heard oral argument on the joint motion on April 29, 2004. After oral argument, the parties engaged in supplemental briefing. For the reasons discussed below, the joint motion of plaintiffs and First Banks is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiffs, Homer J. Holland and Howard R. Ross, filed suit against the United States ("Government") alleging that the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (1989) ("FIRREA"), resulted in a breach of their government contracts regarding the Republic Savings; Galva, Home, and Mutual; and Peoria Savings and Loan transactions. See Holland v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 540 (2003). [**3] Plaintiffs pursued this case in their individual capacities, asserting what they believed were their contract rights. Neither River Valley, [**4] the thrift involved in the relevant transactions, nor First Banks, the successor-in-interest to River Valley, were a party to this action. In Judge Horn's July 30, 2003 decision, the Court found that plaintiffs, as individuals, were in privity of contract with the Government as to the Republic Savings and the Galva, Home, and Mutual transactions, and therefore have standing to assert their breach of contract claims. Id. The Court further found that the enactment of FIRREA breached the contract rights of plaintiffs. Id.
[*398] As the Court and the parties prepared for the damages phase of this litigation, the Government moved on December 2, 2003, to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claims pursuant to United States Court of Federal Claims Rule ("RCFC") 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In an Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2004, this Court granted in part the Government's motion and held that the majority of the damages plaintiffs sought, in the form of expectancy damages and lost value, were "damages incurred by River Valley, and the claim to recover those damages belongs to River Valley, not Holland and Ross." Holland v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 735, 741 (2004).Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
62 Fed. Cl. 395 *; 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 260 **
HOMER J. HOLLAND, HOWARD R. ROSS, AND FIRST BANKS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Prior History: Holland v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 735, 2004 U.S. Claims LEXIS 43 (2004)
Disposition: Joint motion of plaintiffs and First Banks to file an amended complaint GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
real party in interest, damages, join, plaintiffs', amend, relates back, letter agreement, assignees, parties, assigned, thrift, original complaint, belong, joinder, Reply, cause of action, expectancy, doctrine of relation back, shareholder, discovery, investor, factors, oral argument, successor-in-interest, limitations, occurrence, contracts, proceeds, cases, breach of contract claim
Civil Procedure, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel, Judgments, General Overview, Relief From Judgments, Altering & Amending Judgments, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court, Contracts Law, Standards of Performance, Assignments, Public Contracts Law, Contract Performance, Assignment & Novation, Bankruptcy Law, Claims, Types of Claims, Governmental Entities, Parties, Capacity of Parties, Joinder of Parties, Real Party in Interest, Real Property Law, Mining, Claims, Pleading & Practice, Motion Practice, Supporting Memoranda, Complaints, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Relation Back, Federal Government, Claims By & Against