### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT D ecember 02, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1433 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-02461 -CV -BBM- 1 HIRSC H FRIEDMAN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, UNNAMED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UN ITED STATES, W ILLIAM T. THIGPEN, JR., CARL BOYER, ELLEN H A ST IN G S, RO BE RT S T A CK , ind ivi dua lly and in their official capac ities as officer s/em ploy ees of the U nit ed

S tate s, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 2, 200 4)Honora ble J . Owen F orre ster, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation. 2 Before BA RKE TT and HI LL , C ircuit Judg es, and FORRES TE R , D istrict Judg e. * PE R CU RIA M. Hirsc h Friedm an and the United States of Am erica entered into an agreem ent (the “ Settlem ent Agre em ent”) to settle Mr. Friedm an’ s m edical m al pr ac tic e cl ai m

a ga ins t the U nit ed

S tate s D ep ar

tm en t of V et er an s A ff

ai rs ( the

“ D V A ”) . A cc or din g to the a gr ee m en t, Mr . F ri edm anw as to re ce ive $20 0, 000 in

“ full settlem ent and satisfaction” of certa in claim s for personal injury he had as se rte d a ga in stth e DVA aris in g o utof t reat m en t h e rec ei ve d a t a DVAadm inistered hosp ital. T here w as a provision in the Settlem ent Agre em ent which stated that the settlem ent am ountwa s “ without set off or claim of any nature thereon by , the United States of A m erica , its agents, servants[ ] and em ploy ees. ” Su bse que ntl y , the I nte rn al Re ve nue S er vic e (the “ IR S” ) as se sse d aj eo pardy le vy on the c he ck

r ep re se nti ng s uc h f

unds . Mr . F ri edm anha s br ough t this a ct ionto en fo rc e the te rm s of

the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t, w hic h he c la im s do not pe rm it the I R S l e v y. The district court dism issed thi s action for lack of subj ect m atter j ur isd ic tio n, hol din g th at j ur isd ic tio n ov er

c ontra ct c la im s f or m or e than $1 0, 0003

l i e s e x c l u s i v e l y i nth e U n i t e dS t a t e s C o u rto f F e d e r a l C l a i ms . A s t o c l a i ms ex ce ed ing $10 , 000, 28 U . S. C. § 14 91( a) (1 ) pr ovi de s: [t ] he U nit ed

S tate s C ourt of

F ed er al Cl ai m s sh al l have j ur isd ic tio n to render j udgm ent upon any claim against the United States founded ei the r uponthe Co nst itutio n, or any A ct of Co ngr es s or

any r eg ulatio n of an executive departm ent, or upon any express or im

plied contract w iththe U nit ed

S tate s, or f or li qui da te d or

unl iqu idate d dam ag es in ca se s no t so undi ng i n to rt . W e have held that this prov ision , known as the “ Tucker Ac t,” requires that cl ai m s a ga ins t the U nit ed S tate s f or am ount s ine xc es s of

$10 , 000 fo unde d on co nt ract s wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s m us t b e b ro ug htin th e Co ur t o f Cl ai m s. M ark Dunning Indu s., Inc. v. Cheney , 934 F . 2d 2 66, 269 ( 11 Ci r. 199 1) ; Graham v. th H en egar , 640 F. 2d 73 2, 734 (5 Cir. 1981 ). th M r . F r i e d manh a s s o u g h tt o av o i dth i s r e s u l tb y a l l e g i n g o th e r c l a i ms soun ding in tort in his com plaint. Aplaintiff cannot avoid th e j urisdictio nal li m it at io ns of t he Tuck er Act , ho wev er, b y art fu l p le ad in g. Megapulse, Inc. v. Le wi s , 6 7 2 F . 2 d9 5 9 , 9 6 7 ( D . C . C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, “ap l a i n t i f f w h o s e c l a i ms ag ai nst the U nit ed

S tate s are e sse nti al ly

c ontra ct ua l sh oul d no t be a llo w ed to av oid the j ur isd ic tio na l ( an d he nc e re m ed ia l) r es tr ic tio ns o f the T uc ke r A ct by c as tin g it s pleading in term s that would enable a district court to exercise j urisdictio n und er a separate statute. ” Id

. I ti s “w e l l - e s t ab l i s h e dth a tw h e r e at o rtc l a i m s t e ms f r o m a4

br ea chof c ontra ct , the c au se of

a ct ionis ult im at el y

one ari sin g inc ontra ct , and thu s is pr ope rl y

w ith in the e xc lus ive j ur isd ic tio n of the Co urt of

F ed er al Cl ai m s to the extent that dam ages exceed $10,000.” Aw ad v. U nited Sta tes , 301 F . 3d 1 367, 1372 (Fe d. Cir . 2002). A ddi tio na lly , Mr . F ri edm anam en de d hi s c om pla int in the dis tr ic t c ourt t o i n cl u d e h i s o ri g i n al t o rtcl ai m , t h er eb y s ee k i n g t o i n v o k e t h e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s j urisdictio n und er the F ederal T ort Claim s Act. T his claim , how ever, has been ex tin gui she d by

the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t. U nti l and unle ss the S ettle m en t A gr ee m en t i s se t a sid e, thi s c la im no l onge r ex ist s. Ac cordingly , f

indin g no error in the district court’ s determ ination that j urisdictio n over this action li es in the Court of Claim s, the j udgm ent of the district co urt i s AFFIR MED.