Narrigan v. Goldberg

── Narrigan v. Goldberg ── Case No.: 25-1395 Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 25-1395 THOMAS R. NARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. DEBORAH B. GOLDBERG, in her official capacity as Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Mark G. Mastroianni, U.S. District Judge] Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lynch and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Terry Rose Saunders, with whom The Saunders Law Firm, Arthur Susman, The Law Office of Arthur Susman, Edward A. Broderick, and Broderick Law, P.C. were on brief, for appellant. Arjun Kent Jaikumar, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, with whom Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on brief, for appellee. March 18, 2026  LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Thomas R. Narrigan brought a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Treasurer and Receiver-General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("Treasurer"). His complaint challenges Massachusetts's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Narrigan alleges that the Act's interest-payment provisions have resulted in an uncompensated taking of his private property for public use. He has not yet brought a claim to recover his property under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, § 10(a). The district court granted the Treasurer's motion to dismiss, finding that Narrigan lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief, that his claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that he did not state a plausible claim for relief. Narrigan's arguments are susceptible to two readings, both of which fail. First, we hold that Narrigan's apparent challenge to the interest rate he would be provided under the statute is not ripe. Second, we hold that Narrigan lacks standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief based on his assertion that his unclaimed property has already been taken. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal. - 2 -  I. Massachusetts enacted the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, in 1950. Under the statute, certain property that is held by one other than its owner and unclaimed for a set time is presumed abandoned. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A, §§ 1A-6E. Once property valued at one hundred dollars or more is presumed abandoned, its holder must attempt to notify the property's apparent owner at his or her last known address of the available process to rebut that presumption. Id. § 7A. If the owner does not come forward, the holder must file a report, which for most property must include the owner's name and last known address. Id. § 7. The property will then be surrendered to the Treasurer, id. § 8A, who must provide public notice containing the "names of persons appearing to be owners of [the] unclaimed property," id. § 8(b) (emphasis added). The statute directs the Treasurer to "proceed with the liquidation of property" surrendered to her "not earlier than one year after its delivery," id. § 9(b), with all monies received placed in an "Unclaimed Property Fund," id. § 9(e). Whenever such fund exceeds five hundred thousand dol