United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For Carlos Loumiet, Plaintiff: Andres Rivero, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Jorge Alejandro Mestre, LEAD ATTORNEY, Charles Whorton, Kadian Blanson, PRO HAC VICE, Jorge Alejandro Mestre, RIVERO MESTRE LLP, Coral Gables , FL.
For United States of America, Michael Rardin, Lee Straus, Gerard Sexton, Ronald Schneck, each in their individual capacities, Defendants: Reginald Maurice Skinner, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington , DC.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Carlos Loumiet brought suit against the United States Government for the actions of its agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (" OCC" ), under the Federal Tort Claims Act (" FTCA" ) alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, and conspiracy. Plaintiff also filed suit against Defendants Michael Rardin, Lee Straus, Gerard Sexton, and Ronald Schneck (collectively " Individual Defendants" ), alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), as well as various state law tort claims. On January 18, 2013, the United States filed a  Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and the Individual Defendants filed a  Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Bivens claims. The Court granted the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's Bivens and tort claims. The Court also granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process under the FTCA, but denied the United States' Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's FTCA claims alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, and conspiracy to the extent they are premised on statements made by OCC officials to the press. Presently before the Court are the United States' (" Defendant" )  Motion for Reconsideration and Plaintiff's  Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Motion Requesting the Court to Enter a Final Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole the Court shall DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration for the reasons that follow.
A. Factual Background
In March 2001, after becoming troubled by the manner in which the OCC conducted an investigation of Hamilton Bank, N.A., Plaintiff wrote to Treasury Inspector General Jeffrey Rush and other Treasury Department officials, expressing concerns about the OCC's enforcement action against the bank. Compl. ¶ 49. In April 2001, Plaintiff sent the Treasury Secretary and the Office of Inspector General (" OIG" ) a second letter, again expressing concerns regarding the OCC's regulatory actions. Id. ¶ 50. On July 18, 2001, the Treasury Inspector General notified Plaintiff that the OIG had " considered the information and argument [Plaintiff] presented, and . . . concluded that it did not provide a basis for the Office of Inspector General to consider further investigation . . . ." Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. , Ex. 3 (Letter from Jeffrey Rush, Jr., Inspector General). On December 14, 2001, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the OCC in the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the OCC's supervisory actions were motivated by anti-Hispanic bias. See Hamilton Bank, N.A. v. OCC, Case No. 01-cv-4994 (S.D. Fla.). This case was voluntarily dismissed in 2002.
On November 6, 2006, the OCC initiated an enforcement proceeding against Plaintiff, pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (" FIRREA" ) of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 102 Stat. 183 (codified in scattered sections of Title 12 of the U.S. Code). Compl. ¶ 16; Loumiet v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 650 F.3d 796, 799, 397 U.S.App.D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The action, brought by the OCC's Enforcement and Compliance Division, alleged that Plaintiff was an " institution-affiliated party" (" IAP" ) who, as part of his role in the independent investigation of Hamilton, had " knowingly or recklessly . . . breach[ed his] fiduciary duty," and as a result " caused . . . a significant adverse effect" on the Bank. Loumiet, 650 F.3d at 799. Plaintiff claims that this prosecution as well as the surrounding actions made by OCC officials during the prosecution were made in retaliation for his letters expressing concern over bias within the OCC. Compl. ¶ 15. During the three-week bench trial, Plaintiff alleges that the Individual Defendants aggressively pressed unsubstantiated charges and made false statements to the press covering the proceeding, both of which caused substantial damage to his reputation and career. Id. Ultimately, on June 18, 2008, an ...