Hollis Care Group Inc. v. Small Business Administration

Background

The defendants moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the claims. The jurisdictional argument appeared to depend partly on whether the plaintiffs’ claims were “cognizable under section 1346(b)” of Title 28 of the United States Code. The opinion does not identify the specific claims asserted by the plaintiffs.

Legal framework

The court explained that a claim is cognizable under Section 1346(b) only if it is actionable under that provision and the United States would be liable in the same circumstances as a private person under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. The court cited the Second Circuit’s description of the rule: the plaintiff’s cause of action must be comparable to a cause of action against a private citizen recognized where the tort occurred, and the allegations, accepted as true at this stage, must satisfy the necessary elements of that state-law cause of action.

Order

The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental memoranda of law no later than March 10, 2020, with no more than seven pages for each side. The memoranda had to address whether each of the plaintiffs’ claims was comparable to a cause of action against a private citizen recognized in New York State and, if not, what effect that had on the motion to dismiss. The court also directed the defendants, if they argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations satisfied the necessary elements of a New York claim, to explain how that position was consistent with their alternative argument that the claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order required additional briefing and did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss.