NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# miniteb**~tate~** 

# <!Courtof**§ppeal~** 

# fortbejf

# eberal<!Circuit

ALLEY'S OF KINGSPORT, INC., ARROWFORD, INC., AXELROD CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP, INC., AXELROD CHRYSLER, INC., BARRYDODGE INC., BENNETTAUTOPLEXINC., BENSONMOTOR INC., BOB TAYLOR JEEP, INC., BONDY'S FORD,

INC., BROTHER'S MOTORS, INC., CARDENAS MOTORS, INC., CARSONAUTOMOTIVE INC., CDOHY, INC., CRAIN CDJ, LLC, CUNNINGHAM CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., CURFININVESTMENTS, INC., DETAUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., DJ-MACK INC., DONPHILLIPS & SON SR. ENTERPRISES,

INC., DOUGLAS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., ERTLEY CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE, LLC, FITZGERALDAUTO MALLS, INC., FT AUTOMOTIVE II, LLC, FTAUTOMOTIVE IV, LLC, G.K. ALCOMBRACK, INC., GOLDENMOTORS, INC., HAHNMOTOR COMPANY, HOOVER MOTORS HOLDING CO., INC., HOOVER DODGE, INC., I.M. JARRETT & SON, INC., JEFF HUNTER MOTORS, INC., JOHNSON COUNTYMOTORS, L.C., BILL KAY SUZUKI, INC., KINGSTON DODGE, INC., LFCJ, INC., MANCARI'S OF ORLAND HILLS, INC., MARKETPLACE SUZUKI, INC., MARSTALLER MOTORS, INC., MELCHIORRE, INC., MILLERCAMPBELL COMPANY, MILLER MOTOR CAR CORPORATION, MILNER O'QUINN CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP, INC., MORONG BRUNSWICK, NEIL Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2012ALLEY'S OF KINGPORT V. US 2

HUFFMANENTERPRISES, INC., NEIL HUFFMAN, INC., PAINTER SALES AND LEASING, PAINTER'S

SUN COUNTRY CHRYSLER, INC., PENMOTORS, INC., PLEASANTVALLEYMOTORS, INC., PRESTON CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., PRIDE CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., REUTHER DODGE LLC, REUTHER'S INVESTMENT COMPANY, RFJS COMPANY, LLC, SCK, INC., SCOTIAMOTORS, INC., SHOEMAKERAUTO GROUP, INC., SOUTH

SHOREAUTO LINES, INC., STAR CHRYSLER, INC., TAMAROFF 12 MILE MOTORS, INC., TARBOX CHRYSLER JEEP, LLC, TARBOX MOTORS INC., TENAFLY CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., THE UNION SALES COMPANY, THOMAS SALES & SERVICE, INC., VERONAMOTOR SALES, INC., WACO DODGE SALES, INC.,WALKER MOTORS, INC.,WESTMINSTER DODGE, INC.,WHEATON MOTOR CITY, INC.,WHEELER LEASING CO. II, INC., WHITEY'S, INC.,WILLIAM T. PRITCHARD, INC.,WYCKOFF CHRYSLER, INC., YOUNG VOLKSWAGEN, INC., A&D AUTO SALES, INC., ARCHER CHRYSLER JEEPWEST, INC., ARCHER CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., ARCHER DODGE, INC., ARCHER FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC., BOARDWALKAUTO CENTER, INC., BOB LUEGERS MOTORS, INC., BOB ROHRMAN MOTORS, INC., BURKEAUTOMOTIVE GROUP,

INC., BURKE BROTHERS, INC., BYFISHEL'S

JEEPS, INC., CARSON CJ, LLC; CENTURY DODGE, INC., CHILSON, INC., CLARKSTON MOTORS, INC., COLEMANAUTO GROUP, INC.,

COLEMAN CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., COUNTRY MOTORS, INC., DAVE CROFTMOTORS, INC., DODGE OFENGLEWOOD, INC., DONDRENNEN Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/20123 ALLEY'S OF KINGPORT V. US

CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., DONATO & SON'S JEEP, INC., EJE, INC., EL DORADO MOTORS, INC., ELHART DODGE, INC., ELHART PONTIAC-GMC

TRUCK, INC., FORT MORGANAUTO CENTER, INC., FOXHILLS MOTOR SALES, INC., GRAYSON PONTIAC, INC., GRESHAM CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., GRUBBS NISSAN MID-CITIES LIMITED, HAMILTON CHRYSLER, INC., HARVEYM. HARPER CO., ISLAND JEEP, INC., JAMES W. HALTERMAN, INC., JELMAC LLC, JIM MARSH

AMERICAN CORPORATION, JOHN CULLEN DODGE, LLC, KITAGAWAMOTORS, INC., KOVATCH FORD, INC., LEE PETERSONMOTORS, INC., LENIHAN JEEP, INC., LIVONIA CHRYSLER

JEEP, INC., LUNTMOTOR COMPANY, MANUEL DODGE, LTD., MATT MONTGOMERY, INC., MATTHEWS CHRYSLER, INC., MT. CLEMENS DODGE, INC., NEWCITYAUTO SALES, INC., NORTHGLENN DODGE, INC., QUALITYJEEPCHRYSLER, INC., RHODENAUTO CENTER, INC.,

RICHARD CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., RIVERSIDE AUTO SALES OFMARQUETTE, INC., ROCK OF TEXAS AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ROHR-ALPHA MOTORS, INC., SCOTT CHEVROLET, INC., SIEMANS IMPORTS, INC., SOUTHEAST AUTOMOTIVE, INC., TAYLOR & SONS, INC., TED BRITT OFFREDERICKSBURG, INC., TETON MOTORS, INC., TOMSIC MOTOR COMPANY,

TRANSIT LLC, TRI-STATE AUTOMOTIVE ASSOCIATES, INC., URKAAUTO CENTER, INC.,

VALLEYDODGE, INC., VIC OSMANLINCOLNMERCURY, INC., VILLAGE CHRYSLER JEEP, INC., WALLACE CHRYSLER JEEP, LLC,WESTSIDE DODGE, INC.,WRIGHT DODGE, LLC, AND LOU BACHRODT CHEVROLET, INC., Plaintiffs-Respondents, Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 11/29/2012ALLEY'S OF KINGPORTV. US



### v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Petitioner.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 134 4

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d) from the United States Court ofFederal Claims in case no. 11-CV-0100, Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

COLONIAL CHEVROLET CO., INC., AND MIKE FINNINMOTORS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,



### v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Petitioner.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 135

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d) from the United States Court ofFederal Claims in case no. 10-CV-0647, Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

ON PETITION FOR PERMISSIONTO APPEAL Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 11/29/20125 ALLEY'S OFKINGPORT V. US

Before RADER, ChiefJudge, LOURIEand SCHALL, Circuit Judges. SCHALL, CircuitJudge.
ORDER

The United States petitions for permission to appeal from orders certified by the United States Court of Federal Claims as ones involving a controlling issue of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and for which an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of these similar suits. Alley's ofKingport, Inc. et al. and Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. oppose. Alley's of Kingsport also

moves without opposition to reform the caption in 2012- M134.
These petitions stem from complaints brought by former owners of Chrysler and General Motors (GM) automobile dealerships against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The complaints allege that in
response to a global financial crisis, the United States governmentinvestedbillionofdollars in Chrysler and GM

as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and Automotive Industry Financing Program. The complaints further allege that as a condition ofreceiving funding, the government forced Chrysler and GM to terminate dealership franchise agreements through bankruptcy proceedings. The thrust of the complaints is that the forced termination ofthe franchise agreements amounted
to a taking for public use, and thus the government shouldpay the plaintiffsjustcompensation.

The United States moved to dismiss in both cases on the ground that the complaints neither allege sufficient facts nor a viable legal theory that would support a takings claim against the government, but Federal Claims disagreed. The court acknowledged that the Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 11/29/2012ALLEY'S OFKINGPORTV. US 6

plaintiffs' allegations were unusual and their takings theory did not "fit neatly into a normal takings framework." Nonetheless, the court explained that takings theories must be considered in accordance with their surrounding events and circumstances, and that the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to develop a case that may turn out to be unique. Accordingly, Federal Claims denied the government's motions to dismiss.

The United States asked Federal Claims to certify, for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d), the question of the complaints' adequacy. Federal Claims agreed, and we also agree that the criteria for interlocutory appeal under that section are met and that these petitions shouldbe granted and heard on the merits by this court. Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The petitions for permISSIOn to appeal are granted. (2) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The revised officialcaption is reflected above. (3) These cases shall be treated as companion cases andbe argued togetherbefore the same merits panel.

FORTHE COURT

/s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s19 Case: 12-135 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 11/29/2012