Chatterjee v. District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 23-3548 (TJK) (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2025) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · December 10, 2025 · No. Civil Action No. 23-3548 (TJK)

Summary

The court dismissed Samar Chatterjee’s claims against the U.S. Treasury Department and the District of Columbia arising from a $10,704 tax-refund offset allegedly applied to a disputed D.C. unemployment debt. It held that Chatterjee failed to identify a waiver of sovereign immunity for his claims against the Treasury Department and lacked standing to seek prospective suspension of the Treasury Offset Program. The court further held that Chatterjee failed to state claims for interest or penalties against the District of Columbia under the statutes and constitutional provisions invoked.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims against the Treasury Department because he identified no applicable waiver of sovereign immunity for interest or penalties.
  2. Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to seek an injunction suspending the Treasury Offset Program because he did not show that a future offset injury was imminent.
  3. Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the District of Columbia under the False Claims Act, the cited criminal statutes, or the Fourteenth Amendment for interest and penalties.
  4. Plaintiff's False Claims Act claims also failed because they did not comply with the statute's procedural requirements for qui tam suits.
  5. Any claim seeking return of the withheld funds was moot because the Treasury Department had returned the funds.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims against the Treasury Department for interest and penalties based on sovereign immunity.
  2. Whether plaintiff had Article III standing to seek prospective injunctive relief suspending the Treasury Offset Program.
  3. Whether plaintiff stated claims against the District of Columbia under the False Claims Act, criminal statutes, or the Fourteenth Amendment for interest and penalties.
  4. Whether plaintiff's newly asserted Civil Forfeiture Act and Title VI claims stated a claim for relief.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (25)

  • Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 151-52 (D.C. Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
  • DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006)(followed)
  • American National Insurance Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Boling v. U.S. Parole Commission, 290 F. Supp. 3d 37, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2018), aff'd, No. 17-5285, 2018 WL 6721354 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)(followed)
  • Coulibaly v. Kerry, 213 F. Supp. 3d 93, 123 (D.D.C. 2016)(followed)
  • Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996)(followed)
  • Little v. Fenty, 689 F. Supp. 2d 163, 166-68 (D.D.C. 2010)(followed)
  • Osborn v. Visa Inc., 797 F.3d 1057, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Dearth v. Holder, 641 F.3d 499, 501 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…