Regatta Bay Limited v. United States

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Regatta Bay Limited appeals from the district court’s judgment entered after granting of the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We conclude that Regatta failed to establish that it had the kind of “special relationship” with HUD necessary under Nevada law to support an action for either tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing or tortious breach of a fiduciary duty. See Ins. Co. of the West v. Gibson Tile Co., 122 Nev. 455 , 134 P.3d 698, 702-03 (2006)(en banc). Regatta and HUD’s relationship was essentially that of a principal and surety as HUD insured Regatta’s mortgage obligations. See Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Builders, Inc., 113 Nev. 346 , 934 P.2d 257, 260 (1997). Nevada courts have refused to hold that there is a “special relationship” in such a situation. Ins. Co. of the West, 134 P.3d at 702 ; Great Am., 113 Nev. at 354-56 . Further, although HUD, as a government agency, was larger and more powerful, Regatta was nevertheless a sophisticated commercial entity represented by a managing partner with significant…