Yolanda A. Moon v. James T. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Yolanda A. Moon v. James T. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the federal tort claims act makes the united states liable in money damages for the torts of its agents under specified conditions, but the act does not submit the united states to injunctive relief.”
27 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gibson v. Wilson (txnd, 2021-02-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 12 U.S.C. § 1715J(h) cited 1× in this case · 1 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gibson v. Wilson
N.D. Tex. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the federal tort claims act makes the united states liable in money damages for the torts of its agents under specified conditions, but the act does not submit the united states to injunctive relief.
cited Cited as authority (rule) (PC) Fiorito v. United States
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648, 651 (9th 2 | Cir.1992); Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anniversary Mining Claims L.L.C. v. United States of America
D. Nev. · 2021 · confidence medium
Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir. 15 1974). 16 Anniversary Mining did not allege whether it exhausted its administrative remedies.3 As 17 this is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an FTCA claim, Anniversary Mining has failed to establish 18 that this court has jurisdiction over the trespass claim based on the FTCA.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moher v. United States
W.D. Mich. · 2012 · confidence medium
Aguilar v. United States, 397 F.3d 840, 863 (10th Cir.2005); Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648, 651 (9th Cir.1992); Talbert v. United States, 932 F.2d 1064 , 1065-66 (4th Cir.1991); Birnbaum v. United States, 588 F.2d 319, 335 (2nd Cir.1978); Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974); Namer v. United States, 2011 WL 3107819 , *1 (E.D.Ark.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of the Army of the United States
3rd Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173, 182 , 76 S.Ct. 745, 752 , 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956) (district court did not possess power under FTCA to enjoin United States); Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (FTCA does not submit United States to injunctive relief).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of Army of United States
3rd Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173, 182 , 76 S.Ct. 745, 752 , 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956) (district court did not possess power under FTCA to enjoin United States); Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (FTCA does not submit United States to injunctive relief).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wang Zong Xiao v. Reno
N.D. Cal. · 1993 · confidence medium
Id.; Moon v. Takisaki 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam) (“[T]he [FTCA] does not submit the United States to injunctive relief.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Leon Plumes v. J. Michael Quinlan, Director Jerry T. Williford W. Dennis Harrell Kenneth Albright
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1992) (FTCA does not provide equitable relief); Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (FTCA "makes the United States liable in money damages for the torts of its agents under specified conditions, but the Act does not submit the United States to injunctive relief")
cited Cited as authority (rule) Owyhee Grazing Ass'n v. Field
9th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir. 1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Owyhee Grazing Association, Inc. v. William O. Field, Oscar Field, Terry Field, Newton Wright, Roy Draper, Chetstahn, Butch Glenski, Keith Johnson, Sherman Nesbitt, Frank Pike, Mrs. Frank(darcell) Pike, and All Others, Individuals, Purporting to Act as Members, Shareholders,officers or Directors of the Owyhee Grazing Association, Inc., and Gerald Cunningham and Gary Cunningham, Owyhee Brazing Association, Inc. v. William O. Field, Oscar Field, Terry Field, Gerald Cunningham, Gary Cunningham, Newton Wright, Roy Draper, Chet Stahn, Butch Glenski, Keith Johnson, Shermannesbitt, Frank Pike, Mrs. Frank (Darcell) Pike, and All Others, Individuals,purportingto Act as Members, Shareholders, Officers or Directors of the Owyhee Grazingassociation, Inc., and Elwood Thueson, Gaylord K. Harward and the Owyhee County Office of the Farmershome Administration, Owyhee Grazing Association, Inc. v. William O. Field, Oscar Field, and Terry Field, and Newton Wright, Roy Draper, Chet Stahn, Butch Glenski, Keith Johnson, Shermannesbitt, Frank Pike, Mrs. Fran (Darcell) Pike, and All Others, Individuals,purporting to Act as Members, Shareholders, Officers or Directors of the Owyheegrazingassociation, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir. 1974).
cited Cited "see" Palm v. United States
N.D. Cal. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moon v. Takisaki 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (dismissal of claim for injunction for lack of jurisdiction proper because FTCA does not submit United States to injunctive relief).
discussed Cited "see" Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
However, “[t]he only relief provided for in the [FTCA] is ‘money damages.’ ” Talbert v. United States, 932 F.2d 1064, 1065-66 (4th Cir.1991); accord Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir.1974) (“The [FTCA] makes the United States liable in money damages for the torts of its agents under specified conditions, but the Act does not submit the United States to injunctive relief.”).
discussed Cited "see" Norman Birnbaum, B. Leonard Avery and Mary Rule MacMillen Plaintiffs v. United States (2×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1974); Frankel v. Heym, 466 F.2d 1226, 1228 (3d Cir. 1972). 89 We accordingly reverse that part of the judgment ordering that letters of apology be sent.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Dorio
D. Conn. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Moon v. Takisaki, 501 F.2d 389, 390 (9th Cir. 1974); With respect to the Second Count, which alleges intentional misrepresentation, and the Third Count, which alleges negligent misrepresentation, the FTCA does not apply to “[a]ny claim arising out of . . . misrepresentation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Yolanda A. MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James T. TAKISAKI Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
73-2711.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 22, 1974.
501 F.2d 389
James S. Turner, of Roberts, Shefel-man, Lawrence, Gay & Moch, Seattle, Wash., for appellant., Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., Susan L. Barnes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellees.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

Before, MERRILL, KILKENNY and CHOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The mortgage insurance subchapter of the Housing Act provides for several different programs of mortgage insurance. 12 U.S.C. § 1715J(h) provides that the FHA may insure a mortgage of housing that is purchased and rehabilitated by a nonprofit sponsor under commitment to offer the property for sale to low-income purchasers.

Appellant purchased property that had been rehabilitated by the Seattle Urban[*390] League as sponsor under a mortgage to Firstbank Mortgage Corporation, insured by the United States pursuant to § 17151(h) with rehabilitation work performed by James T. Takisaki.

When appellant failed to make the prescribed mortgage payments the mortgagor and the United States threatened foreclosure and appellant brought suit in state court to protect her interest. The United States removed to the federal district court, where the suit was dismissed as against the United States. On appeal to this court the dismissal was upheld in an unreported memorandum on the ground that the United States had not consented to suit in state court, so that court had no jurisdiction; this being so no jurisdiction attached in the federal court when the action was removed. Moon v. Takisaki, No. 72-1495 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 1973).

This suit was then filed directly in the district court by appellant against all parties involved, with jurisdiction against the United States claimed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 et seq. Once again suit against the United States was dismissed by the district court. Once again we affirm.

Appellant seeks money damages and an injunction against foreclosure. The Tort Claims Act makes the United States liable in money damages for the torts of its agents under specified conditions, but the Act does not submit the United States to injunctive relief. Dismissal of the claim for injunction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was proper.

Appellant alleges that defendants were guilty of deceptive practices under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Further she alleges that she was by defendants United States and Urban League induced to execute the mortgage although those defendants “recognizing the plaintiff’s lack of comprehension never revealed to the plaintiff the consequences of the transaction involving the refinancing.” Claims arising out of misrepresentation or deceit are excluded from the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and appellant’s claims fall under that exclusion as it has been construed. See, e. g., United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696, 81 S.Ct. 1294, 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961). Dismissal of this claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was proper.

Appellant alleges that the United States and the Urban League “negligently engaged an incompetent contractor * * * to perform the rehabilitation” and “negligently failed to supervise the work.” Under the Act the Secretary is authorized to insure mortgages under the limited conditions there imposed. He is not authorized to undertake or to supervise the work of rehabilitation and owes no duty to the purchasers of rehabilitated property in that respect. Cf. United States v. Neustadt, supra, 366 U.S. at 708-709, 81 S.Ct. 1294; Jackson v. Romney, 355 F.Supp. 737 (D.D.C.1973). Dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper as to this aspect of the action.

Judgment affirmed.