USCFC General Jurisdiction-Reported

Motion for relief from a final judgment; overruling of the precedent dictating the prior judgment; RCFC 60(b)(5); overruling was in a different case; RCFC 60(b)(6); “extraordinary circumstances” Signed by Judge Lettow.

Alternative Causation; Causation-In-Fact; National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2); Pre-Existing Condition. Signed by Judge Braden.

Alternative Causation; Causation-In-Fact; National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2); Pre-Existing Condition. Signed by Judge Braden.

Amcor; TEFRA; Partnership Item; Penalty Interest; Interlocutory Order; Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Wheeler.

Breach of Contract; Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Cardinal Change; Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-13 (2006); Federal Acquisition Regulations: 52.236-2 (“Differing Site Conditions”); 52.236-5(a) (prohibiting the requirement of “materials” by trade name); Implied Consent That An Issue Was Tried; Standing; RCFC 15(b)(2), Motion To Amend Complaint. Signed by Judge Braden.

Tucker Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1491; 28 U.S.C. § 2501; statute of limitations; RCFC 12(b)(1); subject matter jurisdiction; pro se; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII; racial discrimination; veterans benefits Signed by Judge Damich.

Contracts, agreement to release IRS’s right of redemption, 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d), jurisdiction, presumption of good faith for government employees, motion in limine to exclude prior testimony Signed by Judge Margolis.

Motion to Continue Stay; Indefinite Stay; Interim Injunctive Relief Signed by Judge Futey.

Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; Indian Trust; Operative facts Signed by Judge Block.

Lummi Tribe v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 584 (2011); Anti-Deficiency Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; NAHASDA; Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. v. * No. 110-411, 122 Stat. 4319 Trusts; Fiduciary Duties; Money-Mandating Statute Signed by Judge Smith.

Copyright infringement case; Motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) – statute of limitations; Claim preclusion; Preclusion requirements satisfied; “Recently discovered” evidence did not prevent application of preclusion doctrine; Case dismissed. Signed by Judge Allegra.

AMCOR; TEFRA; Reconsideration; No Intervening Change in Controlling Legal Authority Signed by Judge Damich.

Rails-to-Trails Act; Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Surface Transportation Board; Application of State Property Law; RCFC 56(c) Cross-motions for Summary Judgment; National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983,16 U.S.C. § 1247(d); Texas Law; Methodology for Determining Just Compensation Signed by Judge Hodges.

Fifth Amendment Taking: (1) The only compensable water right that can be obtained under California law is a right to beneficial use. (2) Defendant cannot successfully invoke the takings defense identified in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), where defendant has failed to show that the restriction on water use imposed upon plaintiff pursuant to the Endangered Species Act duplicates the result that could have been achieved under background principles of state law. (3) Plaintiff’s takings claim will not accrue until the government’s action interferes with plaintiff’s beneficial use of water. Signed by Judge Wiese.

Pleading and practice; motion in limine; testimony of lay witness on detrimental effects of fraud on Small Business Administration 8(a) program; Fed. R. Evid. 403, 701, 702. Signed by Judge Miller, C..

Subject matter jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006); Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011); RCFC 12(b)(1); Indian trust claims; substantially the same operative facts. Signed by Judge Merow.

Subject matter jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006); Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011); RCFC 12(b)(1); Indian trust claims; substantially the same operative facts. Signed by Judge Merow.

Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; Indian Trust; Operative facts Signed by Judge Block.

Post-award bid protest; agency properly evaluated strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s proposal; agency’s adjectival ratings of plaintiff’s proposal were proper; agency did not introduce a new factor not described in solicitation in evaluating plaintiff’s proposal for veterans involvement; agency did not engage in disparate treatment in evaluating proposals; SSA’s findings of technical superiority and technical equality were rational and adequately documented; best-value analyses were unnecessary when SSA found that lower-priced proposals were technically superior or equal to plaintiff’s proposal; SSA’s best-value tradeoff analyses were thoroughly explained, documented, and rational; FAR 15.101-1; FAR 15.308; Blue & Gold Fleet L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007), waiver of challenge to terms of solicitation; meaningful discussions; FAR 15.306. Signed by Judge Miller, G..

Motions to Supplement the Administrative Record; Legibility of Administrative Record; Proposed Substituted Documents With Differing Pagination; Expert Declaration Signed by Judge Sweeney.