Basavaraj Hooli v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BASAVARAJ HOOLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2160
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00879-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
Decided: September 10, 2024
______________________
BASAVARAJ H OOLI, Baltimore, MD, pro se.
D ANIEL F ALKNOR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , L OREN MISHA
P REHEIM .
______________________
Before L OURIE, L INN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2160 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

HOOLI v. US 2
P ER CURIAM
Basavaraj Hooli (“Hooli”) appeals the final order of the
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Hooli v. United States, No. 23-879C, 2023 WL 4348838, at
*1 (Fed. Cl. July 5, 2023). For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hooli filed suit against the United States in the Court
of Federal Claims, alleging that he was entitled to, but did
not receive, a five-percent commission related to the supply
of protective gloves and respirator masks to the Depart-
ment of Defense. Supp. App’x 5–7.1 Hooli alleged that he
worked on behalf of a private company, Florida Beautiful
Florida (“FBF”), to supply a third party with gloves and
masks, which were later sold by a company other than FBF
to the Department of Defense. Hooli, 2023 WL 4348838, at
*2; Supp. App’x 5–6. Hooli also alleged that his commission
was paid to a former police officer, App’x 18,2 who threat-
ened Hooli’s life. Supp. App’x 5–6.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Hooli’s com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground
that Hooli did not plausibly allege that a contract existed
between the United States and himself. Hooli, 2023 WL
4348838, at *2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
Hooli argues that the trial court did not receive correct
information regarding his claim because he does not know
1 “Supp. App’x” refers to the appendix the United
States filed concurrently with its informal brief.
2 “App’x” refers to Hooli’s corrected appendix, filed con-
currently with Hooli’s corrected informal brief, beginning
at ECF No. 11, at 8.
Case: 23-2160 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

HOOLI v. US 3
how to present his case and needs an attorney. Hooli fur-
ther argues that the trial court failed to consider one of his
grounds for relief: a former police officer threatened his life
and took his property. We address each argument in turn.
1
While Hooli contends that the Court of Federal Claims
did not receive the correct information, it was his burden
to provide accurate information establishing the court’s ju-
risdiction. See M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United
States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[P]laintiff
bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdic-
tion by a preponderance of the evidence.”). He failed to
carry that burden. Hooli never alleged that he had a con-
tract with the United States. Supp. App’x 5–7. Hooli’s
multiple exhibits fail to show any contractual agreement
with the United States. For example, Hooli references a
letter authorizing him to introduce FBF and discuss its
goods and services. Supp. App’x 8. But this letter does not
suggest that Hooli or FBF contracted with the United
States. Hooli also attached two letters of intent addressed
to the 3M Company, offering to purchase N95 masks; nei-
ther of these letters mention Hooli, FBF, or a contract with
the Department of Defense. See Supp. App’x 9–12. When
reviewing a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, we take as
true all plausible factual allegations and draw all reasona-
ble inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Trusted Integration,
Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Even when drawing every reasonable inference in Hooli’s
favor, these non-binding communications between private
companies do not plausibly support the conclusion that a
contract existed between Hooli and the United States.
For the first time on appeal, Hooli requests court-ap-
pointed counsel to develop his case. Because Hooli’s claim
to recover his missing commission invokes a mere property
interest, Hooli would not have been entitled to court-ap-
pointed counsel as a matter of right. See Lariscey v. U.S.,
Case: 23-2160 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

HOOLI v. US 4
861 F.2d 1267, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“In a civil case involv-
ing property claims but not raising liberty interests or
meeting the strict requirements of the Mathews v. Eldridge
analysis . . . there is no precedential authority for the ap-
pointment of counsel.”). To the extent that Hooli invokes
his lack of representation as a basis for vacating the dis-
missal of his claims, this argument is raised too late. See
Fresenius USA, Inc v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (“If a party fails to raise an argument be-
fore the trial court . . . we may deem that argument waived
on appeal.”).
2
Hooli’s allegations of misconduct by a former police of-
ficer do not provide an independent basis for jurisdiction as
the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims
sounding in tort or against defendants other than the
United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). While Hooli’s
suit names the United States as the defendant, Hooli does
not allege that the United States is responsible for the for-
mer police officer’s misconduct. See Supp. App’x 5–7. Even
if Hooli could plausibly make such allegations, his claim
would sound in tort and the Court of Federal Claims would
lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
We conclude that Hooli has failed to identify any error
that warrants overturning the dismissal of his complaint.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Hooli’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Case: 23-2160 Document: 27 Page: 4 Filed: 09/10/2024

-- 4 of 4 --