Legal Opinion
Thrustmaster of Texas, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 11, 2004No. 03-142-CPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is an action brought under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (2002). Plaintiff, Thrust-master of Texas, Inc., seeks a declaration that the government erroneously terminated plaintiffs contract “for default” rather than “for convenience.” Plaintiff seeks compensation for the improper termination. Before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Thrustmaster concurs that this court lacks jurisdiction, but asks that we transfer the claim to federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000).
BACKGROUND
Thru…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- New Bedford Dry Dock Co. v. PurdySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Tucker v. AlexandroffSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- TAG/ICIB Services, Inc. v. Pan American Grain Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Southwest Marine of San Francisco, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Venus Lines Agency, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Cvg International America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gray v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Kemp v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- J-Way Southern, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of EngineersCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2022
- L-3 Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- J-Way Southern, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of EngineersDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.