Opinion ID: 147533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Separate Arguments of the FAA

Text: The FAA alone makes two additional arguments. First, it contends the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this suit against it because, although the Union is suing agencies of the Federal government, it has identified no waiver of sovereign immunity to this type of suit. In reply, the Union invokes 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedure Act), which waives immunity in actions seeking relief `other than money damages' from an agency of the United States. Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 456 F.3d 178, 186 (D.C.Cir.2006) (citing Dep't of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260-61, 119 S.Ct. 687, 142 L.Ed.2d 718 (1999)). We agree § 702 provides the necessary waiver. Although it is true the Union did not refer to § 702 in its complaint, courts are not restricted to the statutory basis [for jurisdiction] alleged if the factual allegations fairly support an alternative basis. United States v. AT & T, 551 F.2d 384, 389 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1976); see, e.g., In re Mailman Steam Carpet Cleaning Corp., 196 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1999) (Affirmative pleading of the precise statutory basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction is not required as long as a complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction). It is clear from the facts of this case, in which the Union is suing agencies of the United States and seeking non-monetary relief, § 702 provides a waiver of sovereign immunity. Second, the FAA argues that because none of the relief sought by [the Union] can be obtained from the FAA, the Union's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the FAA. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The point, to which the Union makes no reply, is obviously well taken.