Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03389/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3389

___________

Law Office of John J. Allan P.C., *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

JMAC General Construction Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant, *

*

United States of America, through its *

agency, the General Services *

Administration (GSA), *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 25, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the United States (through the General Services Administration)

paid the amount of a disputed contract claim held, plaintiff claims, by plaintiff’s

client, a subcontractor. The claim arose from the construction of the Thomas F.

Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff-Appellant, Law

Appellate Case: 04-3389 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906982
1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

2

As noted, the government moved for dismissal or, alternatively, for summary

judgment. The district court “rule[d] that summary judgment in favor of defendant

on jurisdictional grounds should be granted.” We take this to mean that the

complaint, as to the United States, was dismissed without prejudice, not that the suit

was heard and judgment on the merits of the claim granted in favor of the United

States.

-2-

Office of John J. Allan P.C. (“Allan”), seeks to hold the government liable to it for

refusing to recognize and protect Allan’s attorney’s lien which it claims under the

statutes of Missouri. The attorney’s lien rises out of legal work that Allan alleges it

performed for the subcontractor in the underlying dispute which involved the prime

contractor and the General Services Administration. 

Allan brought this action in Missouri state court against the subcontractor and

the United States to recover the amount of $26,000.00 as attorney’s fees. The

government removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri1

 and moved to dismiss the suit or, in the alternative, for summary

judgment. The government contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction over

the action. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the action for want

of jurisdiction against the United States, and remanded the claim against the

subcontractor to the state court.2

 Allan brings this appeal and we affirm.

In its decision, the district court observed that if the lawsuit were a tort claims

action for an unjustifiable interference by the government with the lawyer’s

agreement with the client for interfering with contract rights, such a claim is

exempted from the federal tort claims action. Thus, the government has not waived

sovereign immunity for that sort of claim under the federal tort claims statutes. 

Appellate Case: 04-3389 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906982
3

Law Office of John J. Allan P.C. v. JMAC Gen. Constr. Co., No. 03-CV01681 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 23, 2004).

-3-

The district court also observed that Allan contended that its claim was one

neither in contract nor in tort, but one for an unclassified action authorized by the

Missouri lien statutes. The court correctly noted that the United States has not

waived its sovereign immunity for a neither-tort-nor-contract action under the state

lien statute. Finally, as Allan appeared to recognize before the district court, if the

action is construed as a contract claim, then jurisdiction lies in the Court of Federal

Claims. See Appellant’s Appendix at 39 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)).

The district court’s opinion3

 demonstrates that plaintiff’s claims stand barred

on jurisdictional grounds. We affirm the dismissal of the action on the basis of that

opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3389 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906982