Marshall Leasing, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration

Good Law
893 F.2d 1096
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 1, 199087-4344California4,172 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in dismissing its action on the grounds that the complaint did not state an equitable claim as required for a waiver of sovereign immunity under 5 U.S.C. § 702 and that appellant had an adequate remedy at law in the Claims Court under the Tucker Act. We find that appellant’s complaint sought equitable relief. We reverse the district court’s finding that appellant had an adequate remedy at law as to its first three claims alleging a denial of due process under the fifth amendment, and af.firm as to the fourth alleging a taking without just compensation. We remand with instructions to the district court to allow appellant to amend its complaint to eliminate its requests in the alternative for monetary relief, for which there is no waiver of sovereign immunity from suit in the district court, and to adjudicate the first three claims on the merits.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant brought this action to challenge an administrative forfeiture of a Mercedes Benz in which appellant claims an ownership or security interest. Appellant is an automobile leasing company. According to the complaint, deputies of the Mult-nomah County…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.