Marian Blank Horn

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.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

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.

federal powerprocedure

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.

civil rightspropertyprocedurefederal power

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.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

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.

civil rightspropertyprocedurefederal power

Simon Legault filed a petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program alleging that a 2019 influenza vaccine caused his sudden sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus, based on a proposed stress response theory. The Chief Special Master denied compensation after finding that preponderant evidence did not support the causation theory under the relevant legal standards. On review, the United States Court of Federal Claims upheld the denial, determining that the special master's conclusions were not arbitrary or capricious as they rested on plausible evidence in the record showing no proven medical theory or logical sequence connecting the vaccine to the injury.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over a firm-fixed-price government contract awarded by the Army to TPMC-Energysolutions Environmental Services 2008, LLC, a mentor-protégé joint venture, for remediation and decommissioning services at a low-level radioactive burial site on USDA property in Maryland. After completing work under several task orders, the plaintiff submitted claims for equitable adjustment totaling over $7 million, alleging issues such as differing site conditions, superior knowledge, defective specifications, contract changes, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the contracting officer denied all claims. The Court of Federal Claims evaluated the five counts in the amended complaint and focused on whether the government's requirement that the contractor waive its rights to further equitable adjustments in exchange for approving a revised work plan constituted misconduct. The court concluded that the contracting officer's refusal to remove or modify the waiver clause, combined with leveraging regulatory deadlines like RCRA storage limits, was unreasonable and breached the implied covenant, while also addressing the distinct meanings of contract clauses on cost impacts.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

In Lite Machines Corporation v. United States, a case pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims, the original complaints listed only Lite Machines Corporation as the plaintiff, but later amended complaints added Paul Arlton and David Arlton without a formal motion for joinder. After ordering briefing on the issue and reviewing the parties' arguments, the court joined Paul Arlton and David Arlton as additional plaintiffs solely in Case No. 18-1411C as pled in the Third Amended Complaint. The court explained that joinder was appropriate to allow it to address any potential issues in the case despite the procedural confusion caused by the unapproved additions. The order explicitly preserves all existing security controls protecting classified information and does not alter them.

procedure

The case involves Lite Machines Corporation suing the United States over the government's failure to award it a Phase III contract under the Small Business Innovation Research program following a classified Phase II contract with the Air Force. The court had previously dismissed the breach of contract claim (Count I) and another count, interpreting the relevant statute as expressing only a preference rather than a requirement to award the contract to the plaintiff. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing injustice, but the court denied the motion, finding no apparent injustice after reviewing public and classified facts, and noting the statute's use of permissive language like "may."

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involves seven companies filing pre-award bid protests in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the Department of the Army's decision to exclude their proposals from a solicitation for IT hardware and related services under the ITES-4H contracts. The protestors were eliminated for failing to meet strict compliance requirements, such as providing statements on adverse past performance and properly completing spreadsheets. The court upheld the Army's exclusions, reasoning that the solicitation requirements were clear, any potential ambiguities were not latent and should have been clarified prior to submission, and the agency's application of strict compliance was rational to avoid ambiguities in evaluations.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case before the United States Court of Federal Claims concerns plaintiff Antonio Martin's challenge to decisions by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) regarding his medical conditions, disability rating, and separation from service in the Marine Corps, Army, and National Guard following injuries sustained during a 2009 deployment to Iraq, including an insect sting and a fall from a vehicle. After multiple Medical Evaluation Boards, Physical Evaluation Boards, remands, and ABCMR decisions in 2018, 2021, and 2023, Martin sought judicial review claiming errors in the handling of his conditions and benefits. The court denied Martin's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the United States' cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. The court reasoned that its review is deferential and that Martin failed to show the 2023 ABCMR decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law, as the board had conducted a thorough review of the medical records and other evidence.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure