The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matthew F. Kennelly, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Best Assets, Inc. sued the United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and others, including an entity called Harrington Moran Barksdale, Inc. (HMBI), in two different Illinois state courts, asserting claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit, and seeking to impose and foreclose upon mechanic's liens on HUD-owned properties. Best Assets' claims against HUD arise out of HMBI and HUD's alleged failure to pay Best Assets for services it performed relating to the properties. HUD removed both cases to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1442.
HUD has moved to dismiss the breach of contract and quantum meruit claims on sovereign immunity grounds and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and it argues that the mechanic's lien claims should be dismissed, and the liens declared invalid, for the same reasons. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants HUD's motions.
The Court takes the following facts from the allegations in Best Asset's complaints. HUD owns the Illinois properties at issue in this lawsuit, which are residential properties located in Cook County and Lake County. HUD contracted with HMBI to provide property management services relating to the properties and gave HMBI permission to enter into contracts affecting the properties. HMBI contracted with Best Assets to manage the properties for HMBI in return for fees (HUD is not a party to the HMBI--Best Assets contracts). Best Assets alleges that it furnished and delivered the materials, fixtures, services and labor required under its contracts with HMBI and that HMBI and HUD accepted all of it. These materials and services allegedly constitute permanent and valuable improvements to the properties. Best Assets has requested that HMBI and HUD pay the balance due on the contracts, a total exceeding $300,000, but HMBI and HUD have failed to pay.
Best Assets filed suit in Cook County and Lake County seeking to recover for breach of contract or, alternatively, for quantum meruit, and to impose and foreclose upon mechanic's liens on the properties. HUD removed both cases to federal court. The Cook County case is Case Number 09 C 4259; the Lake County case is Case Number 09 C 4260.
HUD bases its motion to dismiss on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
"In ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(1), [a] district court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993). To determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, "the district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue." Johnson v. Apna Ghar, Inc., 330 F.3d 999, 1001 (7th Cir. 2003). The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proof, and the Court is free to weigh the evidence to determine whether jurisdiction has been established. United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003).
1. Breach of Contract Claims
Best Assets contends that HUD and HMBI are jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from HMBI's breach of contract with Best Assets. HUD argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction, because the jurisdiction of a federal court upon removal is derivative of that of the state court, and sovereign immunity bars breach of contract suits against HUD in state court. HUD also argues that pursuant to the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over breach of contract claims that allege more than $10,000 in damages against a federal agency.
Best Assets contends that HUD is collaterally estopped from arguing that an Illinois state court lacks jurisdiction and thus from arguing the federal court's lack of jurisdiction. It also contends that an Illinois state court's jurisdiction to adjudicate mechanic's liens gives a state court jurisdiction in this case. Best Assets has not directly addressed HUD's argument that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim.
As an initial matter, the Court rejects Best Assets' collateral estoppel argument. HUD points out that it was not a party to the suits on which Best Assets relies for the estoppel. Thus, assuming for purposes of discussion that the government could be barred by collateral estoppel from asserting sovereign immunity or lack of jurisdiction, there is no basis to impose such a bar in this case. Best Assets cites no authority suggesting otherwise.
A court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit against the United States except where Congress has consented. See, e.g., United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (19 76). The terms of any consent to be sued in any court ...