Free Order Cancelling Deadline/Hearing - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 22

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 1 of 2

In The United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 05-400C (Filed: May 8, 2006) __________ MICHAEL W. STOVALL, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. _________ ORDER __________ The telephonic oral argument on defendant's motion to dismiss that was scheduled for Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. (EST) has been cancelled. Upon comparing the relevant case law to the parties' briefs, the court has determined that defendant has totally misframed the main jurisdictional issue herein, which is not whether this court generally has jurisdiction over contract claims based upon settlement agreements. See Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Rather, the issue is whether the court has jurisdiction over the particular type of agreement at issue here. Accordingly, 1. The parties shall rebrief the jurisdictional issue herein, focusing, inter alia, on the following cases: Brown v. United States, 389 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Massie v. United States, 226 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Bobula v. United States Dept. of Justice, 970 F.2d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Schnelle v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 463 (2006); Hall v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 51 (2005); Mitchell v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 437 (1999), and Friedman v. United States, No. 1:02-CV2461-BBM, 2003 WL 22429685 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 6, 2003). On or before May 15, 2006, defendant shall file its opening supplemental brief. In addition to discussing the cases listed above, defendant's brief specifically shall indicate which federal

2.

Case 1:05-cv-00400-FMA

Document 22

Filed 05/08/2006

Page 2 of 2

courts, if any, have jurisdiction either to enforce the settlement agreement at issue herein or to award damages upon a breach thereof. 3. 4. 5. On or before May 22, 2006, plaintiff shall file his response. On or before May 26, 2006, defendant shall file its reply. Further, in a separate filing, on or before May 15, 2006, defendant shall file with the court its motion to dismiss and supporting briefs in Stovall v. Veneman, 394 F. Supp. 2d 21 (2005), as well as the briefs filed on behalf of the government in Brown v. United States, 389 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003). No enlargements of these deadlines will be granted under any circumstances and all documents shall be filed electronically. The court will contact the parties to reschedule the oral argument.

6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Francis M. Allegra Francis M. Allegra Judge

-2-