Opinion ID: 428296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the claims against the government

Text: 45 In three counts of its complaint, 23 Naartex seeks declaratory and mandamus relief against the Secretary of the Interior. In so doing, Naartex purports to assert the rights of Russell Huff; Naartex itself did not participate in the 1975 lottery. The district court found such vicarious claims to be a classic violation of the federal anti-assignment laws. 542 F.Supp. at 1203. We agree. 46 Section 3727 (formerly 203) of title 31 provides that a transfer or assignment of any part of a claim against the United States Government or of an interest in the claim may be made only after [the] claim is allowed, the amount of the claim decided, and a warrant for payment of the claim has been issued. Furthermore, any such assignment must be attested to be 2 witnesses. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3727(b). Huff's agreement by letter to sell, assign and transfer to [Naartex] all of [Huff's] rights in and to lease # W-50934 24 clearly contravenes these provisions. Such inchoate interests in the government lease may not be assigned, and, in any event, the attempted assignment was not witnessed as required by the statute. 47 In addition, Section 15 of title 41 provides that [n]o contract or order, or any interest therein, shall be transferred by the party to whom such contract or order is given to any other party .... This section evidently prohibits the transfer of Huff's asserted interest in lease W-50394 to Naartex. 25 48 Naartex argues that these provisions do not apply to the Huff assignment because the policies of the anti-assignment provisions have not been violated in this instance. Naartex Brief at 44. Yet for almost a century it has been repeatedly emphasized that a central purpose of both 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3727 and 41 U.S.C. Sec. 15 was that the government might not be harassed by multiplying the number of persons with whom it had to deal. Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U.S. 567, 576, 6 S.Ct. 870, 874, 29 L.Ed. 940 (1886); see United States v. Shannon, 342 U.S. 288, 291-93, 72 S.Ct. 281, 283-284, 96 L.Ed. 321 (1952); Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas, 521 F.2d 941, 944 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 910, 96 S.Ct. 1507, 47 L.Ed.2d 761 (1976). The Huff assignment unquestionably violates this clearly articulated policy. 49 Naartex further contends that, in the event the anti-assignment laws invalidate the Huff assignment, the district court should have permitted Huff to be joined in order to pursue his own claims. While the district court acted properly in denying Naartex's motion to join Huff as a party plaintiff, we disagree with certain reasons offered by the court in support of the denial. 50 The district court refused to permit Huff to intervene in part because [t]he attempt to add Huff as a party plaintiff represents an obvious effort to revitalize a suit which Naartex would otherwise have no basis for litigating due to the operation of the anti-assignment laws. 542 F.Supp. at 1205. This ruling, however, overlooks the mandate of Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). 51 No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest. 52 Because the Anti-Assignment laws invalidate Huff's attempted transfer of his claims against the government to Naartex, he may represent the real party in interest in this action. In such cases, as a general rule, joinder within a reasonable time should be permitted, and the complaint may be amended, substituting the new plaintiff. 53 In this case, however, the district court's denial of the joinder motion was justified by additional considerations. The Supreme Court has concluded that leave to amend pleadings, which is necessary to effectuate the joinder of a party plaintiff, need not be granted when such action would be futil[e]. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); see Parker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 652 F.2d 1012, 1018-20 (D.C.Cir.1981) (reviewing proposed amendment to determine whether amendment would be futile); In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation, 82 F.R.D. 647 (D.D.C.1979). The district court correctly determined that the joinder of Huff to assert his claims against the government would be utterly futile. 542 F.Supp. at 1206. 54 Lease W-50394 became a producing lease in 1977. See supra at 4. According to 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3108.3(b) (1982), [a] lease known to contain valuable deposits of oil or gas may be cancelled only by judicial proceedings in the manner provided in sections 27 and 31 of the Act. Similarly, under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 188(b), leases are subject to cancellation by the Secretary of Interior ... unless or until the land covered by any such lease is known to contain valuable deposits of oil or gas. Therefore, as the district court observed, [l]ease W-50394 cannot be cancelled administratively because it is a currently-producing oil and gas lease. 542 F.Supp. at 1205. A producing lease may be cancelled only through an appropriate proceeding instituted by the Attorney General, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 184(h)(1), or an appropriate proceeding in the United States district court for the district in which the property, or some part thereof, is located, id. Sec. 188(a). Mr. Huff is not the Attorney General and lease W-50394 does not cover land in the District of Columbia. We therefore find that the district court acted properly in denying the joinder of Huff to this action because such joinder would have been futile. 55 Finally, as we noted above, see supra at 788 - 789, the private defendants constitute indispensable parties to the action to cancel the lease. Because the private defendants could not properly be haled before the district court, see supra at 785 - 788, then, the entire action must be dismissed. 56 The district court thus correctly dismissed the claims against the government.