Loren A. Smith

This case is a post-award bid protest in which plaintiff Mitchell Consulting Services Group Inc. challenged the Department of the Army's award of a contract for Test and Evaluation Technical Support Services to defendant-intervenor Defense Testing & Evaluation Support Services JV, LLC. After the suit was filed, the Army announced corrective action that included canceling the award, amending the solicitation to update a FAR clause on SAM.gov registration, and revalidating offerors' registrations under the new version of the clause. The government moved to dismiss the case as moot under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing that the corrective action eliminated any live controversy. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion, holding that the agency's written decision to take corrective action created irretrievable legal consequences affecting the parties' interests, including changes to the solicitation terms and the potential for protest-proofing claims, so the dispute remained justiciable under Article III standards adopted by the court.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a post-award bid protest in which plaintiff Rick Aviation, Inc. challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's exclusion of its proposal for a jet fuel supply contract under Solicitation No. SPE607-25-R-0201. The court considered whether exceptions to the "late is late" rule applied when the plaintiff's electronic submission was never received before the award, whether the agency used unstated evaluation criteria regarding email protocols, and whether the plaintiff had standing to contest the award to intervenor Avfuel, Inc. The court held that the proposal was untimely and not covered by any exception, that no unstated criteria were used, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the award to Avfuel. It therefore granted the cross-motions of the defendant and intervenor for judgment on the administrative record and denied the plaintiff's motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved multiple plaintiffs who owned land parcels underlying or adjacent to a former railroad right-of-way in Greensboro, North Carolina, seeking just compensation after the federal government converted the corridor into a public recreational trail under the National Trails System Act's rail-banking program. Liability for the taking was undisputed, so the court focused solely on determining the amount owed. The plaintiffs requested approximately $10.75 million plus additional damages, while the government argued no compensation was due. The court awarded the plaintiffs $8,914,102, based on the standard before-and-after valuation method measuring the diminution in the parcels' fair market value from the new perpetual trail easement, and rejected claims for extra severance damages such as privacy walls as they would result in overcompensation.

property

Travis Ray Thompson sued the United States seeking Economic Impact Payments enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic along with relief on an identity theft claim and an abatement. The court previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Thompson's tax returns were unsigned and listed an incorrect Social Security number. Thompson moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59, asserting that he had since obtained his correct SSN and could cure the defects. The court denied the motion, finding it untimely under the rule's 28-day filing requirement, inapplicable under the subsection invoked, and unsupported by any change in law or newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Thompson remains free to refile a properly documented claim.

taxesprocedure

This case concerns claims by Slide Fire Solutions and related parties that a 2018 ATF rule classifying bump stocks as machineguns under the National Firearms Act effected a taking of their bump stocks and intellectual property or an illegal exaction by requiring their destruction or surrender within 90 days. The plaintiffs sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and related theories after complying with the rule. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss, allowing claims for a per se taking of the bump stocks, an illegal exaction for the costs of destruction, and a regulatory taking of the intellectual property rights to proceed, while dismissing the illegal exaction claim regarding the value of the bump stocks themselves. The core reasoning was that the complaint plausibly alleged government action that deprived the plaintiffs of property interests without compensation in certain respects, while other claims failed to state a viable legal theory under takings or exaction precedents.

gunspropertyfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Aaron C. Mazie filing a complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. After the court ordered him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and why sanctions should not apply, and to pay the filing fee, Mazie failed to comply or respond substantively. The court dismissed the case with prejudice under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with orders. It also imposed an anti-filing injunction due to Mazie's pattern of filing multiple frivolous cases that had been dismissed in this and other courts, requiring him to obtain leave of the Chief Judge and file through licensed counsel for any future complaints.

procedure

This case involved downstream property owners in the Houston area who sued the United States after the Army Corps of Engineers released impounded water from the Addicks and Barker flood-control dams during and after Hurricane Harvey in 2017, pursuant to a specific regulation in the Water Control Manual requiring induced surcharge releases. The plaintiffs, selected as test cases, claimed this government action caused flooding that constituted a temporary and permanent physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, seeking just compensation. On remand from the Federal Circuit, after summary judgment briefing and a limited trial, the Court of Federal Claims held that the plaintiffs established liability for both a temporary and permanent taking. The court reasoned that the flooding exceeded what would have occurred if the dam gates had remained closed, that the releases were not justified by an imminent emergency under the necessity doctrine, and that defenses based on police powers or relative benefits did not apply. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs on liability, with damages to be determined later.

propertyfederal power

The case involved Devendra Kumar Jain, a Postal Service employee, who sued the United States claiming that a 2016 settlement agreement resolving disciplinary action for falsified time records was void or voidable on grounds including lack of agency authority, ADEA/OWBPA noncompliance, missing breach clause, and duress, and that the Postal Service breached the agreement in multiple respects such as promotions, back pay, leave, and confidentiality. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court held that the settlement agreement was a valid, binding contract and found no genuine dispute that the Postal Service had fulfilled its terms, including processing the demotion, providing back pay and leave credits, and not disclosing confidential information, while rejecting all invalidity arguments for lack of supporting evidence.

labor & employment

This case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims concerned a title dispute over bump stocks transferred from manufacturer Slide Fire Solutions and its founder Jeremiah Cottle to retailer RW Arms under an oral agreement, after the ATF destroyed the items following a 2019 federal ban on bump stocks that was later invalidated. RW Arms sought compensation from the government for the destroyed property, but Slide Fire intervened claiming ownership. The court granted Slide Fire's motion for partial summary judgment and denied RW Arms', holding that the transaction was a consignment or bailment rather than a sale under Texas law, so title remained with Slide Fire and the claim for just compensation as to those items was dismissed. The reasoning emphasized that possession alone does not transfer title in a consignment and that UCC Article 9 did not apply to alter the parties' direct relationship.

gunspropertybusiness & regulatory

In this case, a pro se plaintiff sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming the government denied him affordable healthcare through the Alabama Medicaid program, breached a contract to provide such care, committed negligence and related torts, and violated FOIA to conceal evidence, citing statutes including the False Claims Act and the Public Health Services Act. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the Court of Federal Claims has no authority over tort claims against the government, lacks jurisdiction over FOIA claims because the statute is not money-mandating, and cannot hear False Claims Act allegations, which must be brought exclusively in federal district courts; the breach-of-contract allegations also failed to identify a proper money-mandating source within the court's limited jurisdiction.

healthcarefederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a pro se plaintiff incarcerated in federal prison who sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming that his imprisonment caused emotional and physical harm and constituted a taking of his liberty, labor, and bodily autonomy without just compensation, seeking monetary damages and an accounting. The court expressed doubt about its jurisdiction and ordered the plaintiff to explain the basis for jurisdiction and identify money-mandating sources of law, but the plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of prosecution under the applicable rules.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Travis Ray Thompson, an incarcerated individual, filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking refunds of Economic Impact Payments authorized during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with an order compelling the IRS to address his identity theft claim and an abatement of taxes. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). The Tucker Act provides the court's limited jurisdiction over monetary claims against the United States, but does not extend to mandamus relief, which is vested in district courts, or to discretionary tax abatement claims, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court. The plaintiff had not cured deficiencies such as unsigned returns and incorrect identification numbers despite extensions of time. The dismissal was without prejudice.

taxesprocedure

In Collins v. United States, plaintiff Lisa S. Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to re-issue approximately $291,681 in military and disability benefits deposited into her credit union account in 2007 and that a VA-appointed fiduciary caused the erroneous liquidation of $20,000 from her bank account in 2025, with claims appearing to target various private banks and financial institutions. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice under RCFC 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States, not private entities, and that disputes over veterans' benefits are governed by the comprehensive scheme of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, which requires administrative review by the VA and then judicial review exclusively in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rather than this court.

federal powerprocedure

In Collins v. United States, plaintiff Lisa S. Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to re-issue approximately $291,681 in military and disability benefits deposited into her credit union account in 2007 and that a VA-appointed fiduciary caused the erroneous liquidation of $20,000 from her bank account in 2025, with claims appearing to target various private banks and financial institutions. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice under RCFC 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States, not private entities, and that disputes over veterans' benefits are governed by the comprehensive scheme of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act, which requires administrative review by the VA and then judicial review exclusively in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rather than this court.

federal powerprocedure

The case involves Gemini Tech Services LLC's motion to enforce a permanent injunction against the U.S. Army in a bid protest over Solicitation No. W519TC-23-R-0095 for logistics support services at Redstone Arsenal under an 8(a) small business set-aside. The injunction, issued May 8, 2025, required the Army to evaluate offerors' initial proposals according to the original Solicitation terms after the court found the Army violated FAR 15.306(c)(1) by improperly establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. Gemini argued that the Army's amendment to the Solicitation and request for revised proposals violated the injunction's second prong. The court agreed, granting the motion in part on the grounds that the Army's actions frustrated the injunction's remedial purpose by evaluating altered proposals rather than the initial ones, and it rejected interpretations that would allow evasion through relabeling or procedural changes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Gemini Tech Services LLC's motion to enforce a permanent injunction against the U.S. Army in a bid protest over Solicitation No. W519TC-23-R-0095 for logistics support services at Redstone Arsenal under an 8(a) small business set-aside. The injunction, issued May 8, 2025, required the Army to evaluate offerors' initial proposals according to the original Solicitation terms after the court found the Army violated FAR 15.306(c)(1) by improperly establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. Gemini argued that the Army's amendment to the Solicitation and request for revised proposals violated the injunction's second prong. The court agreed, granting the motion in part on the grounds that the Army's actions frustrated the injunction's remedial purpose by evaluating altered proposals rather than the initial ones, and it rejected interpretations that would allow evasion through relabeling or procedural changes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Nathan Grissom filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims against the United States alleging negligent, reckless, and intentional mismanagement of his trust accounts under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which caused financial hardship, emotional distress, and family separation. The court issued an order to show cause questioning its jurisdiction, as Congress has granted exclusive jurisdiction over FTCA claims to United States District Courts, and directed Grissom to identify the legal basis for jurisdiction in this court. Grissom did not respond to the order, leading the court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and to deny as moot his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

proceduretorts & liability

Justin Paul Dreiling filed a pro se complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit improperly restricted Judge Pauline Newman's participation in court proceedings, based on statutes governing judicial councils. The court issued an order to show cause regarding its jurisdiction, as the Court of Federal Claims requires money-mandating claims against the government. Dreiling responded that one claim was constitutional in nature and the other involved improper execution of a law, but the court found neither provided a money-mandating cause of action. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

federal powerprocedure

In Meyer v. United States, Lieutenant Colonel Michael G. Meyer, an Air Force Reserve F-16 pilot, filed suit after the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records denied his request to correct his records for disability retirement following injuries from a training flight that prevented him from performing his military specialty for over a year. The court found that Department of Defense policy required referral to the Disability Evaluation System for such cases and that the Board's refusal to grant disability retirement status was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court granted Meyer's motion for judgment on the administrative record, denied the government's cross-motion, remanded to the Board for further proceedings, and held that the injuries were combat-related because they resulted from an accident involving a military combat vehicle.

federal powerprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs' motion for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) following a prior judgment awarding them just compensation for a taking by the United States. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding $1,783,886 in fees (reduced from the requested $1,885,886) and the full $597,228.81 in expenses. The court determined that the requested hourly rates were reasonable and that most hours and expenses were necessary and properly documented, but it disallowed fees for certain periods due to lack of explanation for late-included time and minor overstatements. It also rejected the government's argument that the pending appeal on damages divested the court of jurisdiction to decide the fees motion.

propertyprocedure