Adanes

Court of Claims

Adanes

618 F.2d 124, 221 Ct. Cl. 959, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 300

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 2, 1979

DocketNo. 247-79C

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 618 F.2d 124 (Adanes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adanes, 618 F.2d 124, 221 Ct. Cl. 959, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 300 (cc 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action for declaratory and other relief by 460 present and former employees of three different nonap-propriated fund (NAF) activities at Camp Lejeune, a United States Marine base in North Carolina. Plaintiffs seek relief from the adoption of wage schedules that allegedly violate statute and regulation. Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim within this court’s jurisdiction.

In order to establish jurisdiction in this court for claims arising out of employment with NAF activities, plaintiffs must allege claims based on express or implied contracts with NAF activities named in 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1976), as amended by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-563, § 14(i), 92 Stat. 2391. United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123 (1976); Villani v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 329 [960]*960(1976). Two of the NAF activities named in the petition, The Consolidated Club Management System and Special Services, are not found in section 1491. As to the Marine Corps Exchange, plaintiffs admit that they assert no claim based on authorized contract. Brief for Plaintiffs at 8. Therefore they have not stated a claim within this court’s jurisdiction. Spooner v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 312 (1976). Plaintiffs would have us find jurisdiction on the basis of a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (1976) and regulations effectuating the statutes. But this ignores the fact that insofar as NAF activities are concerned, we have jurisdiction only on claims based on express or implied contracts. See Interdent Corp. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 296, 300, 488 F. 2d 1011, 1013-14 (1973). Further, 5 U.S.C. § 5341, relied upon by plaintiffs, does not "expressly command the payment of money” or provide in any way for entitlement to money damages. Thus, it cannot form the basis for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). Finally, we note that declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1976), is not available as a remedy in the Court of Claims. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969).

therefore, it is ordered, upon consideration of the motion papers and the authorities cited herein, without oral argument, that defendant’s motion should be and it is granted. The petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an action for declaratory and other relief by 460 present and former employees of three different nonap-propriated fund (NAF) activities at Camp Lejeune, a United States Marine base in North Carolina. Plaintiffs seek relief from the adoption of wage schedules that allegedly violate statute and regulation. Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim within this court’s jurisdiction.

In order to establish jurisdiction in this court for claims arising out of employment with NAF activities, plaintiffs must allege claims based on express or implied contracts with NAF activities named in 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1976), as amended by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-563, § 14(i), 92 Stat. 2391. United States v. Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123 (1976); Villani v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 329 [960]*960(1976). Two of the NAF activities named in the petition, The Consolidated Club Management System and Special Services, are not found in section 1491. As to the Marine Corps Exchange, plaintiffs admit that they assert no claim based on authorized contract. Brief for Plaintiffs at 8. Therefore they have not stated a claim within this court’s jurisdiction. Spooner v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 312 (1976). Plaintiffs would have us find jurisdiction on the basis of a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 5341 (1976) and regulations effectuating the statutes. But this ignores the fact that insofar as NAF activities are concerned, we have jurisdiction only on claims based on express or implied contracts. See Interdent Corp. v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 296, 300, 488 F. 2d 1011, 1013-14 (1973). Further, 5 U.S.C. § 5341, relied upon by plaintiffs, does not "expressly command the payment of money” or provide in any way for entitlement to money damages. Thus, it cannot form the basis for jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). Finally, we note that declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (1976), is not available as a remedy in the Court of Claims. United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969).

therefore, it is ordered, upon consideration of the motion papers and the authorities cited herein, without oral argument, that defendant’s motion should be and it is granted. The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

618 F.2d 124, 221 Ct. Cl. 959, 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adanes-cc-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack