Background
The IRS investigated professional dance choreographer Stacey Printz for fraudulently reporting income from a monetized YouTube channel and confiscated approximately $4.8 million. Nancy Rhee, a dancer who had trained at the studio where Printz worked, alleged that Printz’s videos used Rhee’s image without permission. On that basis, Rhee claimed to be the sole primary owner of the seized money and asserted an immediate right to it.
Proceeding pro se, Rhee sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. That court dismissed her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, including dismissing a potential Fifth Amendment takings claim because Rhee did not concede that the government’s seizure was valid and did not plausibly allege an ownership interest in the funds. Rhee appealed, while abandoning any challenge to the dismissal of her other claims.
The Court’s Holding
In a nonprecedential per curiam opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked Tucker Act jurisdiction over Rhee’s takings theory because a claimant pursuing compensation for a lawful taking must concede the validity of the challenged government action. Rhee instead repeatedly characterized the seizure as unlawful, including alleging violations of due process and federal tax law. Her reference to the statute under which the funds were seized did not amount to conceding the seizure’s validity.
The Federal Circuit also agreed that Rhee failed to state a viable takings claim because she did not allege facts establishing a legally cognizable property interest in the confiscated money. Her asserted relationship with Printz and allegation that her image appeared in Printz’s videos, without more, did not establish ownership of the seized proceeds. Any error in the trial court’s order of addressing pleading sufficiency and jurisdiction was harmless because the court expressly made the jurisdictional finding required for dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- A Tucker Act takings claim must treat the challenged government action as valid and seek compensation for that lawful action.
- A claimant who continues to characterize a seizure as unlawful does not satisfy the validity-concession requirement for Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.
- A bare assertion of ownership is insufficient; the complaint must allege facts establishing a cognizable property interest in the specific property allegedly taken.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between a compensable taking based on lawful government conduct and a claim attacking government conduct as illegal. Litigants cannot obtain Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction merely by labeling an allegedly unlawful seizure a taking.
It also underscores that an asserted connection to income-generating content does not, by itself, establish ownership of money derived from that content. A takings plaintiff must plausibly connect an established property right to the particular property seized.