Opinion ID: 171744
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the claim for damages?

Text: We also note that Normandy's claim does not seek damages within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 702. In Bowen, the Supreme Court explained that not all species of monetary relief constitute money damages as defined by that Act. Specifically, it distinguished between money damagesor compensatory relief to substitute for a suffered lossand those specific remedies that have the effect of compelling monetary relief; the Court determined that only the former are exempted from the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in § 702 of the APA. See Hamilton Stores, Inc., 925 F.2d at 1278 n. 12 (describing the holding in Bowen, 487 U.S. at 894-901, 108 S.Ct. 2722). Normandy's complaint did not seek compensatory damages. Instead, it sought equitable relief to prevent against HUD's allegedly premature termination of Section 8 payments. Even if we agreed with the district court that Normandy's complaint sought specific performance of a contract, this would not amount to a suit for money damages; as a result, Normandy's suit would still seek relief other than money damages. See Bowen, 487 U.S. at 900, 108 S.Ct. 2722 ([C]laims for specific relief, [even when] monetary, are for `relief other than money damages' and therefore within the waiver of sovereign immunity in section 702.) Because we find that the primary purpose of Normandy's suit is to neither secure monetary relief nor damages, we conclude that it is an action seeking relief other than money damages, such that the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity is implicated.