Cyber Information Technology v. United States Department of Air Force

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 1, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00875
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CYBER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 8 (CYIT), Cause No. C20-0875RSL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AIR FORCE (36th Contracting Squadron 12 [FA5240]), 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 On October 19, 2020, defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss was granted, and the 17 above-captioned matter was dismissed. More than a month later, Morgan Aiken III, the owner of 18 plaintiff Cyber Information Technology, filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that Cyber 19 Information Technology has a meritorious claim against defendant and that he had been unaware 20 of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 11. Mr. Aiken also filed a motion to amend the 21 22 complaint to add himself as a named plaintiff. Dkt. # 13. 23 In response, defendant incorporates by reference its motion to dismiss and again points 24 out that the United States Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims 25 against the United States that exceed $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) and § 1346(a)(2). Mr. 26 Aiken does not respond to the jurisdictional issue, instead arguing that he has evidence to 27 1 support plaintiff’s contract claim. 2 Whether the Court has the power to hear plaintiff’s claim must be decided before 3 reaching its merits. The United States is generally immune from suit unless it consents to them. 4 Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). Where Congress has agreed to waive sovereign 5 immunity, the scope of the consent defines the jurisdiction of the Court to hear an action against 6 7 the federal government. Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988); Baker v. U.S., 817 F.2d 8 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s claim sounds in contract and, because the amount at issue 9 exceeds $10,000, falls within the statutory scope of the Tucker Act. While the Tucker Act 10 waives sovereign immunity for claims such as that asserted here, it requires that they be heard in 11 the United States Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Aiken has failed to show that this Court, sitting 12 in the Western District of Washington, has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s contract claim. It would 13 14 therefore be futile to reopen the case or to grant leave to amend. 15 16 For all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Aiken’s motion to reopen and motion to amend are 17 DENIED. 18 19 Dated this 1st day of February, 2021. 20 21 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27