The case involved plaintiff James W. Tindall's claims against the United States for an IRS whistleblower award under 26 U.S.C. § 7623 based on information he provided about alleged tax violations, along with allegations of contract breaches and constitutional violations after receiving partial payment. Following prior dismissals, appeals, and remand, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting two breaches of contract and four constitutional violations. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over non-money-mandating claims such as Fifth Amendment due process violations and that the remaining allegations failed to state a viable claim.
The case involved Daniel B. Sparks, a retired Marine Corps officer, challenging a Board for Correction of Naval Records decision that upheld the reduction of his retired pay grade from Lieutenant Colonel to Major and an Other Than Honorable service characterization. Sparks filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to set aside the BCNR decision and correct his military records, asserting jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and 10 U.S.C. § 1370. The court denied Sparks' motion for judgment on the administrative record, granted the government's cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that Sparks had not shown material error by the BCNR, including on issues such as the lack of a minority member on the Board of Inquiry, which was not required under applicable Navy regulations and to which no timely objection was made.
In Maldonado v. United States, a pro se plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $25 million in damages, alleging that federal agencies including HUD, DOJ, and the FBI failed to protect him from constitutional violations and procedural irregularities by Connecticut state courts in foreclosure proceedings involving his property and trust interests. The defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims seeking review of state court actions or alleging constitutional violations by state actors, as such claims do not fall within the Tucker Act's waiver of sovereign immunity or present justiciable claims against the United States. The court also denied leave to amend, finding any amendment would be futile given the jurisdictional defects and absence of viable claims.
Ebony Henderson filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program claiming she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccination received on October 13, 2019. The Special Master denied compensation, finding that the petitioner had not met her burden of proof because the onset of her symptoms predated the vaccination and was linked to a prior IV placement, with no supporting expert opinion or attribution from treating physicians. Henderson sought review in the Court of Federal Claims, but the court dismissed the motion as untimely and further held that the Special Master's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor contrary to law, as the evidence did not establish causation by the vaccine.
The case involved Bianca M. Sanchez suing the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment due to the Federal Bureau of Prisons' alleged failure to repay her student loans under a 2018 Student Loan Repayment Agreement. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, finding that no binding contract existed because the agreement lacked required signatures and approvals from authorized BOP officials such as the Regional Director or Personnel Director, and no payments were made. The breach of contract claim was dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, with an additional bar from the six-year statute of limitations, while the quantum meruit claim was dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning centered on the absence of actual authority by government officials to form the contract and the lack of proper execution of the alleged agreement.
DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims after the government seized ten antennas from the company in 2014, asserting claims for breach of contract and an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The claims originated in federal district court and were transferred following dismissal of tort claims and an unsuccessful Ninth Circuit appeal. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion as to the contract claims but denied it as to the takings claim, reasoning that the complaint's factual allegations were plausible and that the government's supporting declarations were insufficient to overcome the presumption favoring the plaintiff at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
.jpg?width=900)