Edward J Damich

The case is a tax-related action brought by Advanced Property Management LLC against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The court addressed the plaintiff's recent filing of an amended complaint that did not bear a signature as required by Rule 11 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. The court directed the Clerk's Office to accept the filing despite the defect and ordered that all future filings must comply with the signature requirement.

taxesprocedure

This case is a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the U.S. Army's award of a task order to Acquisition Logistics LLC for constructing and operating a short-term detention facility at Fort Bliss, Texas, for individuals in immigration proceedings, as well as the Army's decision to override the automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act triggered by the plaintiff's GAO protest. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to halt performance, arguing the override was improper. The court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint. It reasoned that the Army had a rational basis for the override after considering the protest allegations, the short timeline for contract completion, and national security concerns related to the facility's capacity needs, and that the decision complied with statutory requirements despite initial procedural errors.

immigrationbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Plaintiff Joy Chipimarquez, a former Navy petty officer, sued in the Court of Federal Claims after the Board for Correction of Naval Records denied her request to set aside a nonjudicial punishment for cocaine use under Article 112a of the UCMJ and to overturn her resulting administrative discharge. She sought back pay, retirement credit, and other relief, arguing that the urinalysis procedures, evidence, and separation process were flawed. The court granted the government's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied her motion. It held that the BCNR's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, noting the broad discretion given to commanding officers in evaluating evidence and the high deference afforded military personnel decisions.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this case, Great Northern Properties, L.P. filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking just compensation under the Takings Clause for alleged federal interference with its coal rights in Powder River County, Montana, stemming from a state alluvial valley floor determination. The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was identical to one the plaintiff had brought in 2021, which had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and affirmed on appeal. The court granted the motion, holding that res judicata barred the suit because the parties were the same, the prior action ended in a final judgment on the merits, and both claims arose from the same nucleus of operative facts regarding the coal property. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the claim involved ongoing violations or new facts that would avoid preclusion, noting that the exchange remedy and related issues could have been raised in the first action.

propertyprocedurefederal power

The case involved a plaintiff suing the United States for breach of an implied contract with a local housing authority to provide security services, claiming unpaid invoices. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the claim was against a municipal agency, not the United States, even though the agency received federal funding. The court reasoned that receipt of federal funds does not make the entity an agent of the US, and the plaintiff failed to meet prerequisites for any potential Contract Disputes Act claim against the government.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves a dispute over a lease agreement between Broadway Gold, LLC (as successor landlord) and the U.S. Postal Service for a property in Brooklyn used as a post office, including a fixed-price purchase option exercised by the USPS in 2023. Broadway alleges that the USPS breached the lease through failures related to property improvements and maintenance, rendering the purchase option unenforceable, and claims the USPS improperly stopped rent payments after exercising the option without completing the purchase. Broadway sued under the Contract Disputes Act seeking damages and other relief. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government's partial motion to dismiss, finding it had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over the contract claims and that the complaint sufficiently alleged plausible breaches of specific lease terms to survive a 12(b)(6) challenge. The court reasoned that affirmative defenses, such as equitable conversion, could not bar the claims at the pleading stage given the allegations of USPS wrongdoing.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Jones v. United States, an incarcerated plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the jurisdiction of courts-martial that convicted him, seeking backpay, alteration of military records, and relief for alleged wrongful incarceration and civil rights violations under statutes like 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1994, while also referencing an enlistment contract and various criminal statutes. The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims did not fall under the Tucker Act, military enlistment contracts cannot support Tucker Act jurisdiction, any contract claims were time-barred, and the allegations were too vague and implausible to establish jurisdiction. The court further noted that plaintiffs bear the burden of proving jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint as frivolous for having no arguable basis in law or fact.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Culmen International, LLC v. United States, the plaintiff, an incumbent contractor, challenged the Defense Threat Reduction Agency's award of a logistics services contract to TechTrans International, Inc., alleging arbitrary and irrational evaluations in technical, past performance, cost/price, and best value categories. The United States Court of Federal Claims reviewed the administrative record and the parties' cross-motions for judgment. The court decided that the agency's evaluations were reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, finding no evidence of bias or other flaws in the procurement process. As a result, it denied Culmen's motion and granted the government's and intervenor's cross-motions, upholding the contract award to TechTrans.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Culmen International, LLC v. United States, the plaintiff, an incumbent contractor, filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Department of Defense's award of a Threat Reduction Logistics Services contract to TechTrans International, Inc., alleging arbitrary and irrational evaluations in the technical, past performance, cost/price, and best value categories. The agency had conducted a best-value source selection under a solicitation for worldwide logistics support services including transit, procurement, and personnel support. The court denied Culmen's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government's and intervenor's cross-motions. The core reasoning was that the agency's evaluations were rational, documented, and free from bias or prejudice, providing no basis to disturb the award decision.

business & regulatory

In Izard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, petitioner Donald R. Izard sought compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act after receiving a flu vaccine in 2015, claiming it caused him to develop chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The Special Master denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderant evidence that the vaccine caused any injury, based on issues with diagnosis, symptom onset timing, and insufficient causation evidence from experts and literature. On review in the Court of Federal Claims, the court upheld the Special Master's decision, holding that there was no legal error and that the factual findings were well-supported by the record. The court noted that it does not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility determinations made by the factfinder. Judgment was entered for the respondent.

healthcare

In this case, ITegrity, Inc., the incumbent contractor, filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s evaluation of past performance references when awarding a Blanket Purchase Agreement for IT security assessment and authorization services to intervenor AttainX Inc. The plaintiff contended that the agency irrationally minimized its performance on the prior contract and assigned it a lower confidence rating based on less relevant references, which allegedly precluded it from receiving the award despite a lower proposed price. The court found that the agency properly documented its decision, reasonably considered differences in scope and complexity among the references, and conducted a thorough best-value analysis in which past performance was more important than price. It therefore granted the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record and denied ITegrity’s motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Zin Technologies, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff, an incumbent contractor, challenged NASA’s award of an IDIQ contract for space flight support services to Sierra Lobo, Inc. under a small business set-aside solicitation, alleging inconsistent application of evaluation criteria and an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest. The plaintiff also appealed the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals size determination affirming that the awardee qualified as a small business under the applicable employee limit. The Court of Federal Claims denied the plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions. The court held that NASA’s evaluation and the OHA’s size determination were both reasonable and properly documented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing the Department of Veterans Affairs in the Court of Federal Claims for alleged unreasonable delay in processing his veterans' benefits claim and seeking $2 million in damages. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing that the complaint identified no money-mandating source of law. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because claims for veterans' benefits are governed exclusively by the Veterans' Judicial Review Act and 38 U.S.C. § 511, which preempts Tucker Act jurisdiction and bars review by the Court of Federal Claims. The opinion noted that the plaintiff must pursue such claims through the VJRA's statutory procedures instead.

federal powerprocedure