Elaine D Kaplan

The case involved Sundancer Pools, Inc. seeking a tax refund based on the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) under the CARES Act for the second and third quarters of 2021, after the IRS disallowed the credit for those periods despite allowing it for earlier quarters. The company claimed its business operations building pools and spas were partially suspended due to COVID-19 government orders and related costs. The government moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the complaint did not allege facts showing a qualifying suspension caused by government orders. The court found that the allegations, taken as true, failed to establish that operations were fully or partially suspended or that any suspension was proximately caused by qualifying government orders, but deferred ruling to allow the plaintiff to amend the complaint.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Dawn Unga-Stick filed a pro se action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of $29,373 in alleged overpaid federal taxes for the 2021 tax year, though attached exhibits referenced payments from 2022. The government moved for a more definite statement due to the inconsistency, and the court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to file an amended complaint clarifying the tax year by a set deadline and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute. After the plaintiff missed two extended deadlines despite additional warnings, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

taxesprocedure

The case involved Black & Loans, LLC bringing a lawsuit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. After the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for noncompliance with RCFC 83.1(a)(4), the plaintiff stated it would not comply with the rule and agreed that dismissal was appropriate under RCFC 41(b). The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff had amended its complaint as of right prior to the dismissal, but this filing did not alter the outcome.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a class action by advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs who alleged they performed uncompensated overtime work monitoring time-sensitive patient notifications. The plaintiffs claimed that the VA induced this overtime but violated 38 U.S.C. §§ 7453(e)(1) and 7454(a) by failing to pay overtime rates for hours that were officially ordered or approved. The government argued that the work did not qualify because it lacked express advance or after-the-fact approval by an authorized official as required by the VA Handbook. Relying on the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Lesko v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims granted the government's renewed motion for summary judgment, holding that overtime performed on or after August 3, 2017, was not compensable without such express authorization.

labor & employment

This case involves a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act seeking compensation for injuries and death allegedly caused by a flu vaccine administered in September 2020. The petitioner, as administrator of David Taylor's estate, alleged that the vaccine caused Guillain-Barré syndrome, which aggravated preexisting conditions and led to his death in December 2020. The Chief Special Master awarded compensation for the GBS injury but dismissed the death benefit claim as untimely because it was not filed within 24 months of death under Section 16(a)(3) of the Act. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for review, concluding that the statute imposes a 24-month deadline from the date of death for all vaccine-related death claims and that the additional 48-month limit tied to symptoms or aggravation does not create an alternative filing window.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved Rice Services, Inc.'s challenge in the Court of Federal Claims to the Department of the Army's decision to override an automatic stay imposed by the Competition in Contracting Act on a task order award for cook and dining facility services at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Rice had filed a protest at the Government Accountability Office against the award to KBR Services, LLC, and argued that the Army's override findings—based on best interests of the United States and urgent and compelling circumstances—were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The court denied Rice's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government's cross-motion, concluding that the Army's determinations were reasonable and supported by the record regarding the need for efficient staffing at the Cadet Mess. The court also rejected claims that the Army's actions lacked candor or improperly affected competition.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Lennar Corporation and its subsidiary HPS Development seeking indemnification from the United States under Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 for attorneys' fees incurred defending a lawsuit about hazardous substances at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. After an earlier denial of the government's motion to dismiss, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and granted judgment to the plaintiffs while denying the government's cross-motion. The court reasoned that the facts were undisputed, the claimed fees arose out of a covered claim and were reasonable, and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover the full amount sought, resulting in a judgment of $119,095.92.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a pro se plaintiff's motion to correct his complaint after the Court of Federal Claims had sua sponte dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The original complaint alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the plaintiff sought to recharacterize the claims as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents instead. The court denied the motion, reasoning that amendment would be futile because the Court of Federal Claims also lacks jurisdiction over Bivens suits. The court further held that the motion did not meet the standards for reconsideration under RCFC 59 or relief from judgment under RCFC 60.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff incarcerated in California who sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging a taking of private property, unpaid civilian pay, and contract breaches stemming from his belief that the Treasury Department had created a $100 million trust account in his name as a savings bond that it refused to return. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's allegations were based on frivolous sovereign citizen theories, which courts have consistently rejected as fictitious and insufficient to establish a viable claim under the Tucker Act.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In Kauapirura v. United States, pro se plaintiff Ehrenfriede Pahee Kauapirura filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking declaratory and monetary relief based on alleged breach of contract involving GSA form bonds and release from what she described as constructive incarceration due to a false conviction and sentencing. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the claims rested on frivolous sovereign citizen theories—such as distinctions between the plaintiff's name and a supposed legal fiction, a purported contract with the Treasury, and redemption claims—which are insufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because they lack a substantive source of law creating a right to money damages and are deemed essentially fictitious.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims against the United States and several Arizona officials, claiming a contract with the Treasury Department based on unilaterally created GSA-Form Bonds and a trust agreement that he alleged entitled him to payment, discharge of liabilities, and release from a felony conviction stigma. The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing lack of jurisdiction because no valid contract existed and the claims rested on frivolous sovereign citizen theories. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the Tucker Act requires a separate money-mandating source of substantive law for jurisdiction, that the plaintiff's allegations failed to meet this standard, and that the claims were fictitious and obviously without merit.

procedurefederal power

This case is a pre-award bid protest in which United Defense, LLC challenged the Army's decision to award a follow-on intelligence services contract to Evocati Solutions JV, LLC, alleging that one of Evocati's joint venture members violated the Procurement Integrity Act by improperly accessing proprietary information from a member of United Defense's joint venture. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing. The core reasoning was that United Defense was ineligible for the award because its technical proposal received an "Unacceptable" rating unrelated to the alleged Procurement Integrity Act violation, meaning it could not show competitive prejudice or that it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the contract even if the agency had investigated the claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this post-award bid protest, AAR Government Services challenged the U.S. Air Force's award of a Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply contract to V2X Aerospace under a solicitation for services supporting military aircraft. AAR alleged that the agency's price reasonableness analysis, evaluations of past performance for both offerors, and best-value tradeoff were arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Federal Claims denied AAR's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the cross-motions filed by the government and the intervenor. The court reasoned that the agency complied with the RFP by rating technical proposals as acceptable, properly assessing past performance references without adverse issues, and reasonably concluding that the awardee's superior past performance rating outweighed the price difference given the solicitation's emphasis on past performance over price.

business & regulatory

Theodore Haugland filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of federal income taxes for the 2021 tax year after the IRS disallowed his claimed withholding and assessed a deficiency. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Haugland had not fully paid the assessed tax liability as required by the full payment rule established in Flora v. United States. The court explained that under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1), full payment of the assessment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a tax refund suit, and no exception applies when challenging the assessment's validity.

taxesprocedurefederal power

Laborant, LLC, a private health care provider, participated in the federal government's HRSA-administered Uninsured Program that reimbursed providers at Medicare rates for COVID-19 testing and treatment of uninsured patients between 2020 and 2022. After HRSA abruptly shortened the claims-filing deadline to March 22, 2022, Laborant sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of COVID-related funding statutes and program guidelines, seeking over $2.3 million in unpaid claims. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss the first two counts under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that the complaint's facts, taken as true, stated plausible claims for breach of an implied contract. It granted the motion to dismiss the third count under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the cited statutes and program documents were merely money-authorizing rather than money-mandating and therefore could not support Tucker Act jurisdiction.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Christopher Williams, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary damages for alleged violations of his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and due process rights. The court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing filing without prepayment of fees but requiring installment payments of the full filing fee. However, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the plaintiff had not identified a money-mandating source of substantive law, the constitutional provisions at issue do not create a right to damages, and the court has no jurisdiction over civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Youmans v. United States, plaintiff Shatwaylla Youmans, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $500 million in damages against various federal agencies and officials for alleged fraud, waste, and failure to investigate issues related to assistance to immigrants, as well as miscalculation of social security benefits and other claims including against state entities involving matters like wrongful imprisonment. The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The reasoning was that the plaintiff failed to identify a money-mandating source of law as required under the Tucker Act, many claims involved torts or criminal matters not within the court's jurisdiction, claims against non-federal parties were improper, and social security benefit disputes must be brought in district courts rather than the Court of Federal Claims.

federal powercriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Mitchell v. United States, a prisoner proceeding pro se in the Court of Federal Claims sought a tax refund for an approved Recovery Rebate Credit but had his complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute after submitting defective in forma pauperis applications that lacked the required six-month prison account statement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, explaining that prison officials had refused to provide the necessary statement despite his requests, which prevented timely compliance with the court's deadline. The court granted the motion under RCFC 60(b)(1), finding the plaintiff's failure constituted excusable neglect due to circumstances beyond his control, that his underlying claim was meritorious, and that the government would not be prejudiced. It vacated the dismissal, reinstated the complaint, granted the IFP application, and ordered the government to answer within 60 days.

proceduretaxes

In this case under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Cynthia Brandt, as administrator of David Taylor's estate, petitioned for compensation after alleging that a 2020 flu vaccine caused Taylor to develop Guillain-Barré syndrome, leading to injury and death. The Secretary conceded entitlement to compensation for the injury during the two months before Taylor's death but argued the separate death benefit claim was time-barred by the Act's 24-month statute of limitations. The Chief Special Master agreed, awarding injury compensation but dismissing the death benefit claim, after which Brandt sought review in the Court of Federal Claims before the amount of injury damages had been determined. The court denied the motion for review without prejudice and remanded the case, holding that the Vaccine Act requires a special master to issue a final decision addressing both entitlement to and the amount of compensation for all claims in a petition before it becomes reviewable.

healthcareprocedure

Plaintiffs Joshua Luger and Warrior Wash & Emporium, LLC sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that Bureau of Indian Affairs agents conducting a criminal investigation effected an unconstitutional taking by seizing industrial hemp products from their store and refusing to return them after a related tribal charge was dismissed, seeking over $250,000 in damages. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 because plaintiffs had already filed a nearly identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. The court granted the motion, finding that the two suits were based on identical operative facts and that § 1500 therefore barred jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims irrespective of the relief sought or the claims court's exclusive jurisdiction over large takings claims.

procedureproperty