Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00067-RHH

Document 25

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
* * * * * * * * * No. 07-67C Filed: February 19, 2008

BIOFUNCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * Defendant. * * * * * * * ORDER This matter comes before the court pursuant to defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts IV and V of the Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Counts V and IV of plaintiff's Complaint are breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. We do not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims in most circumstances, but no purpose is served by addressing the matter now. For the reasons stated at a hearing on February 12, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. Counsel agreed at the hearing that defendant would attempt to resolve communications problems with plaintiff by sending a series of direct, concise questions that will assist defendant in resolving this case. These questions may include contentions that plaintiff has made or will make to support its case. Defendant's questions should also clarify the title information that may be of use to its title examiner. Plaintiff may seek clarification from defendant or through the court, but in all events we hope to complete this process within two weeks after the date of the hearing, as we discussed then. Counsel may agree to additional time if needed. The court remains available to assist the parties in any way. We hope to complete preliminary activity in this case in the near future.

SO ORDERED. s/ Robert H. Hodges, Jr. Robert H. Hodges, Jr. Judge