# ORIOI[\|AT

lJrtllt @nrtp! $ltutts @ourt of

# fo[trsl @lsimg

No. 15-229C 

### (Filed: October 21,

### 2015) 

# FILED oCT 

### 2

# I 2015 U,S, COURT OF FEDERAL CI."AIMS 

### HASSAN 

### A, ABBAS,Plaintiff, Pro Se; 

### Rule 12(bX1), 

### Subject-Matter Jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(6), Failure to State a

### Claim; 

### Fifth Amendment Takings; Seventh Amendment. 

### THE TINITED STATES, Defendant.

Hassan Abbas, Hanover Park, 

### IL, Plaintiff 

### pro se. James Sweel, 

### Trial Attorney, 

### Martin F. Hockey, 

### Jr., Assistant 

### Director, Robert E. 

### Kirschman,

### Jr., Director, Benjamin C. 

### Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant 

### Attomey General, 

### commercial 

### Litigation Branch, 

## civil Division, United States Department 

### of Justice, 

### washington, DC, for Defendant. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

# I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffpro se, Hassan Abbas, brought 

### this action 

### alleging atakings 

### ofhis right to enforce certain unvalidated German bearer bonds 

### in United States courts, in

### violation of the 

### Fifth Amendment 

### of the 

### United States 

### Constitution, and 

### alleging a

### violation of his 

### right totrial by

### jury underthe Seventh Amendment 

### ofthe United States

### Constitution. See 

### generally 

### Compl. The government has moved 

### to dismiss 

### plaintiff s

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction and 

### failure to state a

### claim upon 

### which relief may be granted, pursuant 

### to Rules 

### l2(b)(1) and 12(bX6) 

### of the Rules

### of the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal 

### Claims

### C'RCFC). See 

### generally Def' 

### Mot; RCFC 

### l2(b)(l); RCFC 

### 12(b)(6). For the reasons set

### forth below, the 

### Court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss.

# II. FACTUALAND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND'



## A. Factual Background Plaintiff is an attomey admitted 

### to the bar 

### ofthe State

### of 

### lllinois. Compl. at 

### 1. On 

### March 6,2015, 

### plaintiff commenced this action against the 

### United States, seeking compensation 

### for an alleged takings 

### of his 

### right to enforce certain 

### WWI-er4 unvalidated German bearer bonds that he has acquired 

### in United States 

### courts. See 

### generally 

### Compl. Plaintiff also alleges a

### violation 

### of his 

### right to a

### trial by

### jury underthe Seventh Amendment 

### of the 

### United States 

### Constitution. 1d. 

### Specifically, 

### plaintiff alleges thatthe govemment has taken his 

### property interest in the Bonds 

### without

### just compensation, 

### by entering 

### into the Agreement Regarding Certain Matters 

### Arising from the

### Validation of German 

### Dollar Bonds 

### in 1953 

### ("Validation Treaty"). Compl. at 1- 4, 

### 7; Pl. Opp. at

### 2l; April 1, 1953, 4 

### U.S.T.

### 885. Plaintiff also alleges that the govemment has deprived 

### him of his Seventh Amendment 

### right to

### trial 

### byjury by entering 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty. 

### Compl. at 3.



# 1 The Bonds 

### Plaintiff owns unvalidated German bearer bonds valued at

### approximately 1000 

### USD (the 

### "Bonds"). Compl. at 

### l, 6; Pl. Opp. at

### 2. It is undisputed that 

### plaintiffdid not own the Bonds at the time that the 

### United States entered 

### intothe

### Validation 

### Treaty. 

## Pl.Opp.at2l;April 1,1953, 4 

### U.S.T. 885. 

### In fact, 

### plaintiff acknowledges that he did 

### not acquirethe Bonds upon

### their 

### first issuance. Pl. Opp. at

### 2l

# . Plaintiff has not, however, 

### provided the Court 

### with any other 

### information about 

### when-or under what circumstances-he acquired the 

### Bonds. Pl. Opp. at21.

Prior 

### to commencing 

### this action, 

### plaintiff served asthe attomey representing a group 

### of bondholders 

### in a 

### lawsuit brought against the Federal 

### Republic 

### of Germany 

### ("Germany") in the 

### United States 

### District Court for the 

### Northern 

### District of 

### Illinois to enforce German bearer bonds. See 

### Bleier v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 

### No. 08 

### C 06254,2011 

### WL 4626164 

### (N'D. 

### Ill. Sept' 30,

### 201l), aff'd sub nom 

### Korber v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, T39 

### F.3d 1009 (7th 

### Cir. 2014). 

### Inthat case, the group 

### of bondholders challenged the 

### legality 

### ofthe validation processes 

### outlined

IThe facts recited inthis Memorandum Opinion and Order are taken from 

### plaintiff scomplaint ("Compl. at

## _"), defendant's motion to dismiss ("Def. Mot. at

## -"), plaintiff sopposition thereto ("P1. Opp. at 

## _"), and defendant's reply ("Def. Rep. at

## _"). Except where otherwise noted, the facts recited here are undisouted.

### in the

### Validation Treaty and sought the payrnent 

### oftheir bonds. 

## Id.at*1,4. The 

### district court

dismissed 

### their claim 

### lor failure to state a

### claim and astime-barred underthe applicable statutes 

### of limitations. See 

### generally Order, 

### Bleier v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 

### No. 08 

### C 06254,2011 

### WL 4626164 G',I.D. 

### nl. Sept.30,2012); 

### Korber,739F.3dat 1011. 

### Following an appeal 

### ofthe district court's dismissal, the 

### United States 

### Cou( ofAppeals for the Seventh 

### Circuit affirmed the 

### district court's decision 

### to dismiss 

### the case. 

### Korber.739 F.3d 

### at 1012-13.



# 2, HistoricalBackground During the 

### period 1924 

### to 1933,the German

### Third Reich sold bearer bonds in 

### United States' markets 

### in order

### to raise capital and 

### rebuild its economy after 

### World War 

## I. Del Mot. at 

### l-2; World 

### Holdings v. Fed. Rep. of 

### Germany,70l F.3d 641,646 (11th 

### Cir. 2012); 

### Fulwood v. Fed. Rep. 

### of

### Germany,734F.3d12,75 

### (|st 

### Cir.20l3). A large

### quantity ofthese bonds remained outstanding after 

### World

## WarII. Pl. 

### Opp. at.2;Def

.

### Mot.

### at2;Abrey v. 

### Reusch,153F. Supp. 337, 339 

### (S.D.N.Y. 1957). 

### Inthe 1950s, the Federal Republic 

### of Germany 

### took several steps 

### tofacilitate the payment 

### of claims on these 

### bonds. Def. 

### Mot. at

### 3. Specifically, 

### in 1952, Germany enacted the German 

### Validation Law for Foreign Bonds 

### ("Validation Law"), pursuant

### towhich Germany assumed 

### liability on the bonds

### if abondholder could demonstrate thatthe bonds had not been located

### within Germany on January 1, 

### 1945. Def. 

### Mot. at 3; 

### Mortimer Off Shore Servs., 

### Ltd. v. 

### Germany,615 F.3d 

### 97,102(2d 

### Cir.2010). Subsequently, 

### in 1953, Germany entered 

### into the 

### London Agreement on German 

### Extemal Debts 

### ("London Debt 

### Agreement") 

### with several countries 

### including the 

### United States. 

### Feb.27,1953, 4 U.S.T. 443; Pl. Opp. at

### 2. The 

### London Debt Agreement served as asettlement 

### offer to the bondholders covered 

### bythat agreement. 4 U.S.T. 

### 443,447; Pl. Opp.

## at2. To that end, the London Debt Agreement required 

### that bondholders 

### who accepted the settlement terms under the agreement validate 

### their bonds, pursuant 

### to the 

### Validation Law, before 

### receiving payment 

### from Germany. Pl. Opp. at 2-3. Germany completed settlement payments pursuanttothe 

### London Debt Agreement on October 3, 20 I

### 0. Pl. Opp. at

### 2; World 

### Holdings, 70 

### I F.3d at 653-54. 

### In 1953, the 

### United States entered 

### into two bilateral treaties related

### tothe German bonds. 

### Def. 

### Mot. at 3-4; Pl. Opp. at

### 3. First, Germany andthe 

### United States entered 

### intotheAgreement Betweenthe Government 

### ofthe 

### United States 

### of America andthe Govemment 

### of the Federal

### Republic of Germany Regarding the

### Validation of Dollar Bonds 

### of German Issue 

### ("Agreement

on 

### Validation Procedures") on February 

### 27,1953. 4 U.S.T. 

### 797. The Agreement on

### Validation Procedures required that 

### all bondholders validate 

### their bonds and that bondholders register 

### their bonds

### forvalidation 

### by 1958. 4 

### U.S.T. 

### 797,839,855-56 ("Bonds which have not been registered 

### forvalidation before 

### expiration ofthe applicable registration 

### period

. . .become 

### invalid upon such 

### expiration."); Def. 

### Mot. 

### at3; World 

### Holdings,701 F.3d at647; 

### Fulwood,734 F.3d

### at76. The agreement also established the procedures 

### for American citizens tovalidate 

### their German bonds, 

### including validating the bonds before the Board 

### for the 

### Validation of German Bonds in the 

### United States. 4 

### U.S.T. 

### 797,839,855-56; Def. 

### Mot. at

### 3-4; World 

### Holdings,T0l F.3d at 647

. 

### In addition, Germany andthe 

### United States entered 

### into anAgreement Regarding Certain Matters 

### Arising from the

### Validation of German 

### Dollar Bonds 

### ("Validation Treaty") on

### April 1, 

### 1953. 4 

### U.S.T. 

### 885. The

### Validation Treaty 

### provided that German bonds could be enforced 

### in United States courts 

### only 

### if the bonds had been 

### "validated either by the Board 

### for the

### Validation of German Bonds in the 

### United States established by the Agreement on

### Validation Procedures,

or by the authorities competent 

### for that purpose" 

### in Germany. 4 

### U.S.T 885, 889; 

### Def. 

### Mot. at4; Pl. Opp. at

### 3. The 

### United States later dissolved the Board 

### for the 

### Validation 

### of German Bonds 

### in 1960. Def. 

### Mot. at

### 4; Pl. Opp. at

### 3. The

### validation requirements in the

### Validation Treaty remain applicable 

### toall owners 

### of German bearer 

### bonds. Compl. at 3; 

### Def. 

### Mot. at3; see also 

### Fulwood, 734 F.3d at 80. 

## B, ProceduralBackground Plaintiff filed the 

### complaint in

### this matter on 

### March 6,

### 2015. See 

### general/y 

### Compl. On 

### April29,2015, the government 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss the 

### complaint for lack 

### of subject-matter 

### jurisdiction and 

### for failure to state a

### claim upon

### which relief may be granted, pursuant to RCFC 

### l2(b)(l) and 

### RCFC 

### l2(bx6). Dei Mot; RCFC 

### l2(b)(1); RCFC 

### 12(bX6). On 

### July

### 6,2015, 

### plaintiff filed a response tothe government's 

### motion todismiss. See

### generallyPL 

### Opp. On 

### July 17,2015, the government 

### filed a 

### reply to the 

### plaintiif s response tothe 

### motion todismiss. See 

### generally Def. 

### Rep. The matter having been 

### fully briefed, the Court addresses the pending 

### motion to dismiss.

## III. LEGAL STANDARDS



## A. Pro Se 

### Litigants Plaintiff is an attomey and he is proceeding 

### in this matter 

### pro 

### se. Parties proceeding

### pro

se are granted greater leeway than 

### litigants represented 

### by counsel. See Haines v. 

### Kerner, 404 

### U.S.519, 520-21 (19'12) 

### (holding that

### pro se complaints are held 

### to "less stringent standards than 

### formal pleadings drafted 

### by 

### lawyers"). Inthis regard, 

### "[e]ven a

### skilled lawyerwho represents 

### himself is at adisadvantage 

### in contested 

### litigation" because 

### "[h]e is deprived 

### ofthejudgment 

### of

an independent

### third party in framing the theory 

### ofthe case
. . .and 

### in making sure that reason, rather than emotion, dictates the proper 

### tactical response

### to unforeseen developments 

### in the 

### courtroom." Kay v. 

### Ehrler,499 U.S. 

### 432,43'/ (1991). And so,

### plaintiff is afforded the same leeway 

### customarily granted 

### to all

### pro se 

### plaintiffs. In addition, while "a court should be receptive

### topro se

### plaintiffs and assist them,

### justice is 

### ill-served when 

### ajurist crosses the 

### line from finder 

### offact to 

### advocate." Demes 

### v. United States, 52 Fed. 

### Cl. 365, 369 

### (2002). Given 

### this, "the leniency afforded 

### to a

### pro se 

### litigant 

### with respect 

### to mere

### formalities does not relieve the burden

### to meet

### jurisdictional requirements." 

### Minehanv. United 

### States,75 Fed. 

### Cl. 249,253 

### (2007). The 

### pro se

### plaintiff still must establish the Court's 

### jurisdiction by a preponderance 

### of the 

### evidence. Riles

### v. United States,93 Fed.

### Cl. 163, 165 

### (2010). And so,

### while the Court may excuse 

### ambiguities in the

### plaintiff s

### complaint, the Court does 

### not excuse the 

### complaint's flailures. See Henke

### v. United States, 60 F.3d 

### 795,799 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1995). 

## B. RCFC 

### l2(bx1) When 

### deciding a

### motion to dismiss based upon a lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction pursuant

### to RCFC 

### l2(bX1), this Court must assume that 

### all undisputed facts alleged 

### in the 

### complaint are true and must draw 

### all reasonable inferences in the 

### non-movant's 

### favor. See 

### Erickson v, 

### Pardus,551 U.S. 

### 89,94 (2007); 

### RCFC 

### 12(bX1). Plaintiff, nonetheless, bears the burden 

### ofestablishing subject-matter

### jurisdiction, and must do so 

### by a preponderance 

### ofthe evidence. Reynolds v.

### Army &

### Air Force Exch.

### 9erv.,846F.2d746,748 (Fed.

### Cir. 1988). 

### And so, should the Court determine that 

### "it lacks 

### jurisdiction over the subject matter, 

### it must dismiss the

### claim." Matthews 

### v. United 

### States,72Fed. 

### C|.274,278 (2006).

# c. RcFc r2(bx6) When 

### deciding a

### motion to dismiss based upon

### failure to state a

### claim pursuant

### to RCFC 12(b)(6), 

### this Court must assume that 

### all undisputed lacts alleged 

### in the 

### complaint aretrue and must draw 

### all reasonable inferences 

### in the 

### non-movant's 

### favor. See 

### Erickson,55l U.S. at94; 

### RCFC 

### 12(bX6). To survive a 

### motion to dismiss under 

### RCFC 12(bX6), a

### complaint must contain facts

### sufficient to "state a

### claim to 

### reliefthat is plausible on its 

### face." Bell

### Atl. Corp. v. 

### Twombly,550U.S.544,570(2007);seealsoAshcroftv. 

### lqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009). When the 

### complaint fails to "state a

### claim to 

### reliefthat is plausible on its face," the Court must dismiss the

### complaint. Iqbal,556 U.S. at 678 

### (citation 

### omitted). On the other hand, 

### "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a

### court should assume 

### their veracity" and determine whether 

## it is plausible, based on these facts,

### to

### find against the

### defendant. Id. 

### at679. 

## D. Fifth Amendment Takings Claims The 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims has exclusive

### jurisdiction over 

### Fifth Amendment takings claims 

### in excess 

### of $10,000. 28 

### U.S.C.

### $ la91(a); see also Acceptance Ins. Cos. 

### Inc.v. UnitedStates,503 F.3d 1328,1336 (Fed.

### Cir.2007). The Takings Clause 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment guarantees 

### just compensation whenever private 

### property is 

### "taken" for public
use. U.S. Const. amend.

## V. The purpose 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment is

### to prevent the 

### "[g]ovemment from forcing some people alone 

### to bear 

### public burdens 

### which, in 

### all faimess and 

### justice, should be bome 

### by the 

### public as a

### whole." Penn 

### Central Transp. Co.v. 

### City ofNew 

### York, 438 

### U.S. 104, 123 (1978) 

### (q\oting Armstrong v. United Stales, 364 U.S. 40, a9 (1960));

seealso 

### Florida Rock Indus., 

### Inc. v. United Stares, 18 

### F.3d 1560, 

## l57l (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994). 

### In order to have a cause

### ofaction for a 

### Fifth Amendment takings, the 

### plaintiff must 

### point to a protectable 

### property interest that is asserted 

### to bethe subject 

### ofthe takings. See 

### Phillips v. Wash. Legal 

### Found.,524 U.S. 156, 164 (1998) ("Because the 

### Constitution protects rather than creates 

### property interests, the existence 

### ofa property interest is determined by reference to 

### 'existing rules or understandingsthat stem 

### from an independent source such as state

### law."') (citation 

### omitted). Inaddition, courts have

### traditionally divided their analysis 

### of 

### Fifth Amendment takings 

### into two categories-regulatory takings and 

### physicaltakings. 

### Inthis regard, the 

### United States Court 

### ofAppeals for the Federal

### Circuit has recognized that 

### "Ig]ovemment action that does not 

### directly appropriate or invade, 

### physically destroy, 

### or oustan owner 

### from property 

### but is 

### overly burdensome may be a regulatory 

### taking." A 

### & D

### Auto

Sales, 

### Inc. v. United 

### States,748 F.3d 1142, 1151 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2014). ln assessing whether a regulatory takings has occurred, courts generally employ the balancing 

### test seI

### forth in Penn 

### Central, weighing the character 

### ofthe govemment action, the economic impact 

### ofthat action and the reasonableness 

### ofthe property owner's investment-backed 

### expectations. Penn 

### Central Transp. Co.,43 8 U. S.

### at 124-25. "The general 

### rule at least is that

### while property may be regulated 

### to a certain extent, 

### if regulation goes 

### toofar 

### it

### will be recognized as a

### taking." Penn. 

### Coal Co. v. 

### Mahon,260 U.S.393,415 (1922); see also 

### Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. 

### [nc.,544 U.S. 

### 528,537 (2005) 

### (holding a regulation is atakings 

### if it is 

### "so onerous that its effect is tantamount to adirect 

### appropriation or ouster")2. 

### In contrast, 

### physical or

### per setakings occur when the 

### govemment's action amounts 

### to a physical occupation or 

### invasion of the property, 

### including the 

### functional equivalent 

### of"a practical ouster 

### of [the 

### property owner's] possession." Transportation Co.v.

### Chicago,99U.S. 635,642 (1878); seealso 

### Lorettov. Teleprompler 

### Manhattan CATV 

### Corp.,458 U.S. 

### 419,428 ( 

### 1982). When anowner has suffered a

### physical invasion 

### of his property, the 

### United States Supreme Court has noted that 

### "no matter 

### how minute the 

### intrusion, and no matter 

### howweighty the 

### public purpose behind 

### it, we have required 

### compensation." Lucas,505 U.S. 

### at 1015. The 

### distinction between a 

### physical invasion and a govemmental 

### activity that merely 

### impairs the use 

### of that property turns onwhether the 

### intrusion is 

### "so immediate and direct as

### to subtract

### from the 

### owner's 

### full enjoyment 

### of the 

### property and 

### to 

### limit his 

### exploitation 

### of 

## it." United States v. Caus by, 328 

### U.S. 256,265 (1946).

2 Regulations that arefound to betoo restrictive, so that the regulations deprive propertyof its entire economically beneficial or productive use, are viewed ascategorical takings. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003, 

### l0l5(1992); see alsoA & DAuto Sales, T48 F.3d at I

### l5l-52. Categorical takings do not require the application 

### ofthe Penn Central balancing test. 

### Id.at1152. Th€ United States Supreme Court has mainly applied the categorical test to regulatory takings of real property



### . See Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1015-19. 

### lnA & DAuto Sales, the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted that it has attimes applied the categorical testtotangible personal property as

### well. 748F.3dat 1151-52 (citing Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States,373 F.3d 1177, | 196-98 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see also Maritrans, Inc. v. United States,342 F .3d 1344, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

## E. Statute 

### Of Limitations And Standing Doctrine Pursuant to

### title 28, 

### United States Code,section 2501, 

### "[e]very claim of which the 

### United States Court 

### ofFederal Claims has

### jurisdiction shall be barred unless the 

### petition thereon is

### filed within six years after such 

### claim 

### first accrues." 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 2501. This six-year 

### limitations period is 

### not susceptible to equitable 

### tolling. John R. Sand 

### & Gravel Co.

### v. United 

### Stales,552 U.S. 130, 136 

### (2008). In addition, 

### "a claim accrues 

### 'when 

### all the events have occurred 

### which

### fix the 

### liability of the Government and 

### entitle the claimant 

### to institute an

### action."' Goodrich v. United Srates, 434 F

### .3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006) 

### (citing Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United 

### States,855 F.2d 1573,1576-77 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988)); see also Bay 

### Area Laundry and 

### Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. 

### Ferbar Corp. 

### ofCal., |nc.,522 U.S. 192,201 (1997) 

### (("a cause 

### ofaction does not become complete and present 

### for limitations purposes 

### until the 

### plaintiffcan file suit and obtain 

### relief.") (citations omitted)). 

### Within the context 

### of a 

### Fifth Amendment takings 

### claim, a

### plaintiff must 

### bring atakings 

### claim 

### within six years 

### ofthe date on

### which the takings 

### occurred. 28 

### U.S.C. $2501; 

### Hair v. United Stures,350 

### F.3d 1253,1260 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2003); 

### Alliance of Descendants 

### ofTex. Land Gronts 

### v. United 

### States,37 F.Jd, 1478, 1481 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1994) 

### (holding that a 

### FifthAmendment takings 

### claim accrues when the takings occurs) 

### (citing Sreel Improvement 

### & Forge Co.

### v. United 

### States,174Ct.Cl.24,29 (1966)). When atreaty is alleged 

### to effectuate atakings, the 

### plaintiff s takings 

### claim accrues when the 

### United States enters 

### into the

### treaty. See

### Alliance,3T F.3d at 1482; 

### cf. Goodrich, 434 F .3d

### at 1336 

### (holding that the 

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim accrued when the 

### United States Forest Service adopted a Record

### of Decision, "regardless 

### ofwhen the consequences 

### of the decisions contained therein are

### felt."). In addition, a

### plaintiff must show that he

### or she owned the property alleged to have beentaken atthe time that the alleged takings occurred, 

### to have standing to 

### bring a

### takings 

### claim. Cristina Inv. Corp.v. United 

### States,40Fed. Cl. 571, 580 (1998) 

### (citing United States v. 

### Dow,357 U.S. 17, 20-21 (1958)). 

# IV. DISCUSSION 

## A. Plaintiffs Takings Claim Is 

### Untimely As an 

### initial matter, the Court does 

### not possess 

### jurisdiction to consider 

### plainti{Ps takings 

### claim becausethe 

### claim is

### time-barred. 

### It is

### well established that 

### "[e]very claim of which the 

### United States

### Cou( ofFederal Claims has

### jurisdiction shall be barred unless the 

### petition thereonis

### filedwithin six years after such 

### claim first accrues." 28 

### U.S.C. $

### 2501. Within the context 

### of

a 

### Fifth Amendment takings 

### claim, a

### plaintiff must 

### bring atakings 

### claim 

### within six years 

### of the date on

### which the takings 

### occurred. 28 U.S.C. 

### $2501; 

### Hair,350 F.3d 

### at 1260;

### Alliance,3T F.3d 

### at

## l48l (holding a 

### Fifth Amendment takings 

### claim accrues when thetakings occrus) 

### (citing Steel 

### Improvement,IT4 Ct. 

### Cl. at

### 29). Inaddition, when atreaty is alleged

### to effectuate a

### takings-as the

### plaintiff alleges in 

### this case-the takings 

### claim accrues when the 

### United States enters 

### intothe 

### Ireaty. See

### Alliance,3T F.3d 

### at 1482; 

### cf. 

### Goodrich,434 F.3d 

### at 1336 

### (holding that the 

### plaintifPs takings 

### claim accrued when the 

### United States Forest Service adopted a Record 

### ofDecision, "regardless 

### ofwhen the consequences 

### ofthe decisions contained therein are

### felt."). And so, 

### in this case, 

### plaintiff must show that he

### filed histakings 

### claim 

### within six years 

### of the date on

### which the 

### United States entered 

### into the treaty that effectuated the alleged

### takings. Id. The undisputed facts in 

### this case show that

### plaintiffs takings 

### claim accrued many decades before he commenced this 

### action. Plaintiff states 

### in his 

### complaint that the alleged takings 

### in this matter occurred when the 

### United States entered 

### intothe

### Validation Treaty 

### with Germany. Compl. at 

### I- 4,7;Pl. Opp. at

### 2. It is

### without dispute thatthe 

### United States entered 

### intothis treaty on

### April 

## l, 1953*more than

### sixty years before 

### plaintiff commenced this action. 

### Compl. at,

### e.g.,I- 3; Pl. Opp. at

### 3. As established above, when a

### treaty is alleged

### to effectuate the takings, the takings 

### claim accrues when the govemment enters 

### into that treaty


### . Alliance, 37 F.3d 

### at 1482; see also 

### Goodrich,434 F.3d 

### at 1336. Given this, 

### plaintiffs takings 

### claim accrued when the 

### United States entered 

### intothe

### Validation Treaty, and, as a result, he commenced

### this takings action 

### well beyond the

### sixyear 

### limitations period 

### provided for 

### in section 25

### 01. See 28 

### U.S.C. $2501 

### (plaintiff must 

### bring claims before the 

### United States Court 

### of Federal Claims 

### "within six years after such 

### claim 

### first accrues.") 

### And so, 

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim is

### time-baned by the statute 

### of limitations set

### forth 

### in section 2501 

## . 28 

### U.S.C. $ 2501

. 

### In his 

### oppositiontothe 

### govemment's motion to dismiss, 

### plaintiff argues that histakings 

### claim is

### timely becausethis 

### claim accrued on October 3, 2010, when Germany completed certain payments

### to bondholders pursuanttothe London Debt 

### Agreement. Compl. 

### atl,7-8; Pl. Opp. at 2,

### 23-24. Plaintiff, thus, argues that hewas "prevented 

### from obtaining relief 

### until after October

### 3,2010." Compl. at 12; Pl. Opp. at 23-24 (emphasis 

### in

### original)r. But.

### plaintiff sargument is

belied bythe undisputed facts 

### It is

### well established that 

### "a claim accrues 

### 'when all the events have occurred 

### which 

### fix the 

### liability of the Government and entitle the claimant 

### to institute an

### action."' Goodrich v. United 

### States,434 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2006) 

### (citing Hopland Band of Pomo 

### Indians v. United 

### States,855 F.2d 15'73,1576-77 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1988)); see also Bay 

### Area Laundry and 

### Dry Cleaning Pension Trust 

### Fund v. 

### Ferbar Corp. 

### of Cal., 

### [nc.,522 U.S. 

### 192,201(1997) (("a cause 

### of action does not become complete and present 

### for limitations purposes 

### until the 

### plaintiffcan file suit and obtain 

### relief.") (citations

### omitted)). Moreover, as discussed above, atakings 

### claim based upon atreaty accrues when the 

### United States enters 

### into that

### treaty. Alliance,3T F.3d at 1482; seealso 

### Goodrich,434 F.3d 

### at 1336. And so, here, 

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim must have accrued when 

### all

### ofthe events related to the 

### United States 

### Govemment's decision to agreeto the 

### Validation Treaty and, 

### specifically, the

### Treaty's validation requirement had 

### occurred. 1d. 

### It is

### without dispute that the 

### govemment's decision 

### to enter 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty 

### in 1953 isthe govemment action that imposed the 

### obligation on

### plaintiff tovalidate his Bonds before enforcing the Bonds 

### in United States 

### courts. Compl. at 3;see also 4 

### U.S.T.885,889. Plaintiffdoes notallege-and the Court is not aware 

### of-any subsequent action on the part

### ofthe United States regarding 

### this requirement tovalidate the 

### Bondsa. Pl. 

### Opp. 

### at21-24. And so, the undisputed facts 

### in this matter make clear that 

### all

### ofthe events necessary 

### to

### fix the 

### liability 

### ofthe govemment 

### for allegedly taking 

### plaintiff s

### right to enforce unvalidated German bearer bonds 

### in

r Plaintiff inconectly argues the Court must accept "astrue for purposes 

### ofthe motion to dismiss" his disputed factual assertion that the takings claim in this matter accrued on October 3,2010. See Pl. Opp. at 

### 23. It iswell established that this Court is not required to accept disputed facts astrue within the context of deciding a motion to dismiss. Bloomington Hosp. v. United States,29 Fed. Cl. 286,294 (1993) 

### (citing Papasan v.Allain,4'18 U.5.265,283 (1986) 

### ("ln ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state aclaim, fthe Court] must accept astrue the complaint's undisputed factual allegations, and should construe them in a light most favorable to the 

### plaintiff")); see also 

### Erickon v. Pmdus,551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (holding 

### that when deciding a motion to dismiss based upon a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(bXl), this Court must assume that all undisputed facts alleged inthe complaint are true and must drawall reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor.). aAlthough it iswithout dispute that the United States later dissolved the Board for the Validation 

### of German Bonds after the United Statesentered into the Validation Treaty, plaintiffdoes not allegethat this action affected thevalidation requirement imposed by the Validation Treaty. Compl. at 3; Pl. Opp. at 3. 

### l0

### United States courts occurred atthe 

### time that the 

### United States entered 

### into the

### Validation



### TteaIy. Goodrich, 434 F.3d 

### aI 1333. For the same reason, 

### plaintiffs argument that histakings 

### claim accrued 

### in 2010-when he 

### first had the 

### ability to bring suit 

### to enforcethe Bonds against 

### Germany-is 

### similarly without 

### merit. Pl. Opp.

### aI22-23. Plaintiff arguesthat histakings 

### claim is

### timely because he could not have 

### filed suit to enforce the Bonds 

### until Germany completed settlement payments under the London Debt 

### Agreement. Compl. at 

### l2; Pl. Opp. at

### 22-24. But, the date on

### which 

### plaintiff could have 

### filed a

### claim to enforcethe Bonds against Germany is 

### simply not relevant 

### to determining when histakings 

### claim against the 

### United States 

### accrued. Indeed, as discussed above, 

### all of the actions on the part 

### of the 

### United States Govemment 

### to require bondholders 

### to validate 

### their bonds before 

### bringing suit 

### in United States courts occurred 

### in 1953*when the 

### United States entered 

### into the 

### Validation 

### Treaty. Germany's actions

### with respect tothe settlement payments made pursuanttothe 

### London Debt Agreement 

### simply have no bearing upon 

### plaintiff s

### claim against the 

### United States. 

### And so,the

### timing of Germany's settlement payments under the 

### London Debt Agreement cannot 

### properly serve asthe basis

### for establishing when 

### plaintifls takings 

### claim accrued in

### this matler. Alliance, 37 F .3d

### at 1482. 

### In sum, the undisputed facts in this case make clear that

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim accrued 

### in 1953 andthat he

### filed this 

### claim 

### well afterthe six-year statute 

### of limitations period

### for bringing such a

### claim had 

### expired. The six-year statute 

### of limitations period set

### forth in section 2501 is

### ajurisdictional requirement 

### for bringing suit 

### in this 

### Court. See 

### Martinez v, 

### United States,333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed. 

### Cir.2003). And so, the Court must dismiss

### this claim for lack of subject-matter

### jurisdictions. RCFC 

### l2(b)(1); 28 

### U.S.C. $2501. 

## B. Plaintiff Lacks 

### StandingTo 

### Bring His 

### Takings Claim 

### Plaintiff stakings 

### claim is also

### jurisdictionally precluded because he lacks standing to 

### bring the

### claim. 

### "It is

### well established that 

### 'only persons 

### with a

### valid property interest atthe

5Plaintiffalso incorrectly argues international law should govern in this matter and that Germany's conduct tolled the statute of limitations in this case. Compl. at4, 35-37; 

### Pl.Opp.at25-27. But, the matter before this Court is atakings claim brought against the United States, not a case to enforce sovereign debt under international 

### law. See generally Compl. In addition, 

### it iswell established that the six-year limitations period setforth in section 2501 is not susceptible to equitable 

### tolling. John 

### R Sand

### & Gravel Co. v. United States,552 U.S. 130, 136 (2008). 

## ll

### time

### ofthe taking areentitled 

### to

### compensation."' CRV Enterprises, 

### Inc. v. United States,626



### F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2010) 

### (quoting 

### lryau v. United 

### States,271F.3d, 1090, 1096 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2001)). As discussed above, thetakings alleged 

### in this case occuned when the 

### United States entered 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty 

### with Germany, 

### in 1953. Compl. at 

### l- 4,7; CRV Enterprises, 

### 626F.3da|1250;Alliance,37F.3dat1481. Although 

### plaintiff does 

### not state when he acquired the Bonds,

### plaintiff acknowledges that he

### did not 

### own the Bonds 

### in 1953. Pl. Opp. at

### 21. Given this, 

### it is

### without dispute that

### plaintiffdid not 

### hold a

### valid property interest 

### in the Bonds 

### in 1953. 

### And so, 

### plaintiffdoes not have standing to 

### bring histakings 

### claim andthe Court must dismiss this 

### claim. CRV Enterprises, 626 F.3d aL 1249-50.



## C, Plaintiff Fails 

### To State 

### A Plausible 

### Fifth Amendment Takings Claim Plaintiff also 

### fails to state a plausible takings 

### claim in the

### complaint. RCFC 

### l2(b)(6);

see

### also Twombl),, 550 

### U.S. at 570 

### (plaintifffails to "state a

### claim to 

### reliefthat is plausible on 

### its 

### face."). It is

### well established that 

### identifying a cognizable property interest is the

### first step 

### in a takings 

### analysis. 

### SeeAir Pegasus 

### of D.C., 

### Inc. v. United 

### States,424F.3d 1206, 1213 (Fed. 

### Cir. 2005) 

### ("we do not reach 

### this second step

### without 

### first identifuing acognizable 

### property 

### interest."). To allege a plausible takings 

### claim here, 

### plaintiff must show that he had a cognizable 

### property intelest in the Bonds atthe

### time of the alleged 

### takings. Chancellor Manor v. United 

### States,33l F.3d 

### 891,901-02 (Fed. 

### Cir.2003) 

### (citinglVyatt,27lF.3d at 1096) 

### ("It is 

### axiomatic that 

### only persons 

### with a

### valid property interest atthe

### time

### oftaking are entitled 

### to compensation."); see

### also United States v. 

### Dow,357 U.S. 17,20-21 

### (1958). As discussed above, 

### plaintiff acknowledges that the he 

### did not own the Bonds atthe time that the alleged takings 

### occurred-when the 

### United States entered 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty 

### in 1953. Compl. at 1-3. Given this, 

### plaintiff simply could not have had a cognizable property interest in the Bonds atthe 

### time ofthe alleged

### takingso. And so,the Court must also dismiss 

### plaintiff stakings 

### claim 

### for failure to state a

### claim. RCFC 12(bX6).

6Plaintiffalso fails to establish that heowned the Bonds on October 3, 2010. See generaliy Compl.; Pl. 

### Opp. And so, even if the Court accepts the premise that the alleged takings inthis matter could have occurred in 2010, plaintiff as not shown that he had acognizable property interest inthe Bonds atthat 

### time. Id.



### t2

## D. The

### Court Does 

### Not Possess 

### Jurisdiction To Consider 

### Plaintiff s Seventh 

### Amendment Claim 

### Plaintiff s Seventh Amendment 

### claim is also

### jurisdictionally barred. The Seventh Amendment codifies the 

### right to

### trial 

### byjury in certain 

### civil cases in federal 

### courts. U.S. Const. amend.

## VII. Inthe 

### complaint, 

### plaintiff alleges that, 

### by entering 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty, 

### "the U.S. has 

### deprived 

### [him] of the 

### right to

### trial by

### jury to

### fix [his] damages," 

### inviolation of the Seventh 

### Amendment. Compl. at8;see 

### a/soCompl.at3, 13 

### This Court does not possess 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate claims brought pursuant to the Seventh 

### Amendment. Jaffer v. United States, 

### No. 95-5127, 1995

### WL 592017, at 

### *2 (Fed. 

### Cir. Oct. 

### 6, 1995) 

### (holding that a

### violation 

### ofthe Seventh Amendment does 

### not 

### "explicitly or 

### implicitly obligate[ 

### ] the federal government 

### to pay damages," andthe Seventh 

### Amendment cannot 

### "support a

### claim for relief in the Court 

### ofFederal Claims."); seealso 

### Harris v. United Srares, 118 Fed. 

### Cl. 180, 190 

### (2014). And so,

### to the extent that

### plaintiff alleges a Seventh Amendment 

### claim, the Court must also dismiss this 

### claim for lack 

### of subject-matter

### jurisdiction. RCFC 12(bXl).7 

# V. CONCLUSION In sum, the undisputed facts in this matter show that

### plaintiffs takings and Seventh Amendment claims are

### jurisdictionally barred andwarrant 

### dismissal. 

### Plaintiffs takings 

### claim is time-barred because he

### failed to 

### bring this 

### claim 

### within six years 

### ofthe date thetakings 

### claim accrued-when the 

### United States entered 

### into the 

### Validation Treaty 

### with Germany 

### in 1953. The undisputed facts also show 

### plaintiff lacks standing

### to bring histakings 

### claim, because he

### did not have a

### valid property interest 

### in the Bonds atthe 

### time of the alleged

### takings. In addition, the Court must also dismiss 

### plaintiff s Seventh Amendment 

### claim, because the Court does 

### not possess 

### jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims.

? Because the Court has determined that it does not possessjurisdiction to consider 

### plaintiffs takings claim, the Court does not reach the issues raised in defendant's motion to dismiss regarding whether the Validation Treaty could interfere with 

### plaintiffs investment-backed expectations, orwhether the Court's consideration of 

### plaintiffs takings claim presents apolitical question. Def. 

### Mot. at8-12;Def. Rep. at 6- 9.

IJThe Court must also dismiss 

### plaintiffs takings 

### claim for failure to strate a

### claim upon

which relief may be granted, because thefactual allegations 

### in the 

### complaint make clear

### that 

### plaintiff held no cogrdzable 

### properg interest in the Bonds atthe 

### time of the alleged takings. 

### And so,

### for the

### foregoing reasons,the 

### Court 

### GRANTS defendant's 

### motion to dismiss and dismisses the 

### complaint.

The 

### Clerk is directed 

### to enerjudgrnent accordingly. Each party 

### to bear its 

### own costs. 

## ITIS SOORDERED.



## l4