
USCA1 Opinion

	




          October 2, 1992       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________          No. 92-1300                               RONALD MULLENS, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ___________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE                      [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]                                            ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ____________________                Terrence  M.  Narrigan,  with  whom  Vafiades,  Brountas  &                ______________________               ______________________          Kominsky, were on brief for appellants.          ________                Mark  W.  Pennak, with  whom  Stuart  M. Gerson,  Assistant                ________________              _________________          Attorney General,  and Richard S. Cohen,  United States Attorney,                                 ________________          were on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                    Per Curiam.   In June, 1988,  appellants bought a  home                    __________          from the  Farmers' Home  Administration (the "FHA").   Appellants          allege  that (1)  under 42  U.S.C.    4822 et  seq. and  7 C.F.R.                                                     ________          Subpart A,  the FHA had  a duty to  inspect appellants' home  for          lead paint and to notify appellants  if any existed; and (2) that          the FHA failed to do  so.  They further allege that as  a result,          their daughter ingested lead paint in the home, and consequently,          suffered from lead poisoning.  Pursuant   to  the   Federal  Tort          Claims Act  (the "FTCA"), 28 U.S.C.    2671, et seq.,  appellants                                                       _______          brought  suit  against  the  FHA claiming,  among  other  things,          negligence  and negligent misrepresentation.   The district court          granted  the FHA's motion to  dismiss for lack  of subject matter          jurisdiction.  We affirm that decision.                    The FTCA confers jurisdiction  on the federal  district          courts over  certain tort claims against  the federal government.          However,    it   excludes    "any    claim    arising   out    of          misrepresentation."   28  U.S.C.    2680(h).   Thus,  the federal          district  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  over  misrepresentation          claims  against  the  United  States.    Under  United  States v.                                                          ______________          Neustadt, 366  U.S. 696,  703-04 (1960)  (quoting Hall  v. United          ________                                          ____     ______          States, 274 F.2d 69, 71 (10th Cir. 1959)),  the misrepresentation          ______          exclusion includes negligent misrepresentations.                    Appellants  essentially claimed that  the FHA's failure          to warn them about  the lead paint in  their home was  negligent.          Their harm arose because they relied on the  absence of a warning          that the lead paint existed.  Although appellants presented these                                         -2-          allegations  as  a  negligence  claim, in  substance,  they  have          alleged a negligent misrepresentation  claim.  Neustadt, 366 U.S.                                                         ________          at  706.    Thus,  the  district  court  had  no  subject  matter          jurisdiction.                    Affirmed.                    ________                                         -3-
