This case involved a dispute over the taxation of costs in a breach-of-contract action brought by Sonoma Apartment Associates against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. After prevailing on its expectancy damages claim but losing on appeal regarding a tax neutralization payment, the plaintiff sought costs including fees for daily trial transcripts; the clerk initially taxed $25,225.08 against the defendant. The defendant moved for review, objecting to transcript costs for days when testimony on the unsuccessful claim was heard. The court reviewed the matter de novo under RCFC 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2), prorating transcript costs based on the proportion of pages devoted to the prevailing claim versus the unsuccessful one, resulting in a reduction of $4,793.25 and a revised total costs award of $20,431.83.
This case is a class action brought by Health Republic Insurance Company and other insurers against the United States seeking full risk corridors payments owed under the Affordable Care Act for the 2014 and 2015 benefit years. After the Supreme Court ruled that the government is liable for those payments, the United States moved for leave to amend its answer to assert counterclaims for setoff to recover delinquent debts that certain members of a Dispute Subclass allegedly owe under other ACA programs. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion, dividing the class into subclasses and allowing the amendment. The court reasoned that the request was timely, would not prejudice the subclass, and would not be futile because the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not preempt the government's setoff rights under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2508.
Plaintiff Yuen C. Yu, a longtime USPS employee, sued in the Court of Federal Claims for damages stemming from the alleged breach of a 2007 EEOC settlement agreement that resolved her claims of age and race discrimination and required her reinstatement to a permanent position with back pay and fees. After the EEOC found the agency had breached the agreement and ordered compliance, the plaintiff sought enforcement and additional damages in this court rather than in district court. The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Title VII-related claims, which require de novo review in district court, and that any Tucker Act breach claim was time-barred because it accrued years before filing.
In Yates v. United States, pro se plaintiff Jesse G. Yates, III challenged the IRS's collection efforts and tax liability for his 2006 personal income taxes, seeking a refund of over $18,000 plus injunctive relief against ongoing collection, after the Tax Court had determined he owed taxes and penalties following an audit of a real estate sale. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were barred by res judicata from the prior Tax Court decision for the same tax year, the Flora full payment rule prevented a refund suit since the liability remained unpaid, and the court had no jurisdiction over tort, criminal, due process, or injunctive claims against the IRS. Additional claims, including for accounting expenses, were similarly dismissed as untimely or outside the court's authority under statutes such as I.R.C. §§ 6512(a), 7421(a), and 7433(a).
Lewis B. Jones, a former Air Force service member honorably discharged in 1988 with disability severance pay after an eye injury, filed suit seeking disability retirement pay and benefits under 10 U.S.C. § 1201, alleging that conditions including TBI and PTSD should have resulted in retirement rather than severance. The United States moved to dismiss, and the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion, dismissing the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the claim accrued at the time of discharge in 1988 and was barred by the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501, rejecting arguments that later VA disability ratings or an AFBCMR denial in 2020 restarted the period. Department of Defense policies on mental health conditions were found not to affect or waive the limitations period.
.jpg?width=900)