A.f.t.e.r., Incorporated, Antigo Apartments Company, Are Properties, Argent… v. United States

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

A.F.T.E.R., INCORPORATED, ANTIGO
APARTMENTS COMPANY, ARE PROPERTIES,
ARGENT APARTMENTS OF PHILLIPS, ARGENT
APARTMENTS OF RIO, ARGENT APARTMENTS
OF RUDOLPH, ASHLAND ENTERPRISES,
BARNEVELD ENTERPRISES, BAY HARBOR, BEB,
BLUE HERON PARK APARTMENTS, BOSCOBEL
FAMILY HOUSING, BRODHEAD ELDERLY
HOUSING, C.F. CROIX ASSOCIATES, CATHERINE
SQUARE ASSOCIATES, CHASSELL ENTERPRISES
I, CITY NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
COBB ELDERLY HOUSING, DAKOTA,
INCORPORATED, DARLINGTON FAMILY HOUS-
ING, DODGEVILLE ENTERPRISES, DODGEVILLE
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING JACK DOUTHITT,
ELLENDALE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LEONARD
WESTROM, SALLY WESTROM, PAUL VOLLAN, AND
SANDRA VOLLAN,
Plaintiffs,
AND
R&R INVESTORS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
V.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="AFTER INC v. US" -->

## HOGENSON R&R INVESTORS, Movants-Appellants.

2011-5054

## Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 03-CV-2264, Judge Susan G. Braden.

Before BRYSON, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

R&R Investors move to reform the caption to reflect
its status as "Plaintiff-Appellee" and the status of the
proposed intervenors as "Movants-Appellants." R&R
Investors also move for summary affirmance of the Court
of Federal Claims' order denying the proposed interve-
nors' motion to intervene and to allow filing of a notice of
appeal, which is the subject of this appeal. Hogenson
R&R Investors (Hogenson) oppose the motion. The
United States does not oppose the motion.

This case has a long history. In 2003, a group of prop-
erty owners, including R&R Investors, brought Tucker
Act claims against the United States in the Court of
Federal Claims. In May 2007, the parties settled.

Following settlement, a dispute arose relating to the
accurate partnership of R&R Investors, with Hogenson
R&R Investors claiming entitlement to the settlement
proceeds. That dispute was fully litigated in Minnesota
state court. The Minnesota court of appeals held that
R&R Investors, not Hogenson R&R Investors, was enti-

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="AFTER INC v. US" -->

tled to the proceeds. In December 2009, the Minnesota
Supreme Court denied Hogenson's petition for review.

After the conclusion of the Minnesota litigation, the
Court of Federal Claims dismissed the suit in April 2010
and denied Hogenson's subsequent motion to vacate and
for reconsideration in May 2010. Hogenson then filed
with the Court of Federal Claims both a motion to inter-
vene and to allow filling a notice of appeal. At the same
time, Hogenson filed a writ of mandamus in this court,
alleging that they were entitled to the settlement pro-
ceeds.

Subsequently, this court denied Hogenson's writ of
mandamus because the Minnesota Court of Appeals
determined that the Tucker Act claims are the property of
the current R&R Investors. The Court of Federal Claims
then denied Hogenson's motion to intervene. This appeal
followed.

Hogenson's primary argument is that the Court of
Federal Claims cannot defer to the Minnesota court
because the Minnesota court misapplied the Anti-
Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727. Hogenson argues that
the Takings claims remained an asset of the original
Hogenson R&R Partnership and was not the R&R Part-
nership's claim to assert or on which to collect the settle-
ment proceeds.

Hogenson misreads the intention of the Anti-
Assignment Act. 13 U.S.C. § 3727 acts to protect the
government and "has been interpreted as being solely for
the Government's own benefit to assent to and recognize
an assignment where it seems appropriate." G.L. Chris-
tian & Assoc. v. U.S., 312 F.2d 418, 423 (Ct. Cl. 1963); see
also Mckenzie v. Irving Trust Co., 323 U.S. 365 (1945)
("The provisions of the statute governing assignments of
claims against the Government are for the protection of

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="AFTER INC v. US" -->

the Government and not for the equities of the claimants
as between themselves.")

Here, the government settled the claim against it,
recognizing R&R Investors as the partnership-in-interest.
Hogenson's reliance on the Anti-Assignment Act is mis-
placed. The Minnesota court settled the issue and the
Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Hogenson's
motions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) The motion to reform the caption is granted. The
revised official caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

AUG 1 7 2011

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Kenneth S. Kessler, Esq.
Erick G. Kaardal, Esq.
William L. Roberts, Esq.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AUG 1 7 2011

s24

JAN HORBALY
CLERK