Free Motion to Dismiss - Rule 41(a) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 31.0 kB
Pages: 2
Date: February 4, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 376 Words, 2,541 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/21139/49.pdf

Download Motion to Dismiss - Rule 41(a) - District Court of Federal Claims ( 31.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Dismiss - Rule 41(a) - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 49

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS **************************************** * SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT * CORPORATION, * Plaintiff, * * v. * * UNITED STATES, * Defendant, * * ****************************************

Filed: January 31, 2008

Case No. 06-232C (Judge Baskir)

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Come now all parties to the above-styled action, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and pray this Honorable Court to dismiss the above-styled action without prejudice. In support of this motion, the parties state unto the Court as follows: 1. On July 23, 2007, the Government filed its Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment, based in part upon the premise that this Court did not have jurisdiction over the above-styled action due to the lack of an appropriate Contracting Officer's Final Decision. 2. The Plaintiff responded in opposition to the Government's motion on August 31, 2007. 3. Oral argument on these conflicting motions was held on December 19, 2007.

4. Since the oral argument, the Plaintiff has discovered that the Terminating Contracting Officer's Decision, which had been relied upon to establish jurisdiction of this Court, was rendered without sufficient authority over the specific issues raised by the Plaintiff in this action. 5. Without a valid Contracting Officer's Final Decision on the Plaintiff's claims, this Court is not vested with appropriate subject-matter jurisdiction to consider said claims. 6. The Plaintiff has never dismissed an action based upon these claims in any court of the United States. WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the Plaintiff and Defendant jointly stipulate to a dismissal of the above-styled action for want of jurisdiction, said dismissal being without prejudice.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 49

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 2 of 2

This Motion is respectfully submitted on this the 4th day of February, 2008.

/s/ Howell Roger Riggs______ Howell Roger Riggs Attorney for the Plaintiff Dick Riggs Miller LLP 200 Clinton Avenue West Regions Center, Suite 1050 Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Tel: (256) 564-7317 Fax: (256) 564-7319 [email protected]

/s/ Joan M. Stentiford______ Joan M. Stentiford Attorney for the Defendant Department of Justice, Civil Division Commercial Litigation Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 616-0341 Fax: (202) 514-8624 [email protected]

2