Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03432/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3432

___________

Yvonne M. Bohac, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Thomas M. Walsh; Suelthaus & Walsh; *

First National Bank of the Mid-South; * Appeal from the United States

The Bank of Advance; Missouri * District Court for the Eastern 

Department of Economic Development; * District of Missouri.

Salim I. Akbani; Akbani Industries, Inc.; *

Sportswear, Incorporated; By the *

Administrator of the United States of *

America, also known as Small Business *

Administration, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2004 

Filed: October 25, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BEAM, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Yvonne M. Bohac (“Bohac”) and Salim I. Akbani (“Akbani”) were married

from 1982 until May 1997. In 1995, Bohac and Akbani co-signed loan guarantees

of Akbani’s two corporations, Akbani Industries, Inc. and Sportswear, Incorporated.

Bohac later learned that her husband had engaged in bank fraud (check kiting) from

Appellate Case: 03-3432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2004 Entry ID: 1825598 
1

 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

October to December 1994. In 1998, creditors foreclosed on properties of Bohac,

Akbani and Akbani’s corporations. Akbani filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but many of

his debts were not dischargeable. Bohac claims she is liable to pay at least

$1,948,767 as a result of signing the loan guarantees.

On November 25, 2002, Bohac filed a complaint against nine defendants: (1)

Thomas M. Walsh, (2) Suelthaus & Walsh, P.C., (3) First National Bank of the MidSouth, (4) The Bank of Advance, (5) Missouri Department of Economic

Development, (6) Akbani, (7) Akbani Industries, Inc., (8) Sportswear, Incorporated,

and (9) the United States of America, by the Administrator of the Small Business

Administration (“Small Business Administration”). She alleged that each defendant

knew of Akbani’s check kiting activities and failed to warn her, and that their silence

constituted fraud. The district court dismissed the claim against the Small Business

Administration, holding that the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity.

The district court1

 dismissed the claims against the rest of the defendants for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

We agree with the district court that sovereign immunity bars Bohac’s claim

against the Small Business Administration. As the district court succinctly stated:

Plaintiff’s claim is one for fraud. Fraud is a tort for which only the

Federal Tort Claims Act can potentially provide a cause of action

against the United States and a waiver of the government’s sovereign

immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) and § 1346(b). Section 2679(a)

expressly states that this is so notwithstanding the provision of 15

U.S.C. § 634(b)(1) authorizing the Administrator of the SBA to “sue and

be sued.”

District Court Opinion at 3-4.

Appellate Case: 03-3432 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2004 Entry ID: 1825598 
-3-

In addition, even if Bohac’s claim was cognizable under the Federal Tort

Claims Act, it is procedurally defaulted because she failed to exhaust her

administrative remedies. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant must present

her “claim to the appropriate Federal agency” and the agency must make a final

decision before the claimant may bring an action against the United States. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a). Further, “[a] tort claim against the United States shall be forever barred

unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency within two years

after such claim accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). It is undisputed that Bohac failed to

file an administrative claim with the Small Business Administration prior to bringing

suit against the United States. Her claim against the Small Business Administration

is therefore barred.

As to the remaining defendants, the plaintiff has not stated any basis for federal

jurisdiction. In fact, it does not appear that the plaintiff appealed the district court’s

decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. To the extent that it was

appealed, we affirm the district court.

The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3432 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/25/2004 Entry ID: 1825598