Centex Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending in this Winstar1 related contract action are plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses under Rule 54(d)(2) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC” or “Rule”), their motion for monetary sanctions under RCFC 37(e), and defendant’s motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in support of their RCFC 54(d)(2) motion for fees. The matter has been fully briefed and orally argued. For the reasons set out below, we deny plaintiffs’ Rule 54 motion and defendant’s motion to strike. We grant in part plaintiffs’ Rule 37 motion.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- American Federal Bank, FSB v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Securiforce International America, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Deseret Management Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011