Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army

Federal Circuit

Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedSeptember 26, 2025

Docket25-1899

StatusUnpublished

This text of Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army (Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army, (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Case: 25-1899 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DASHTI SANAT LOGISTICS AND GENERAL CONTRACTING, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________

2025-1899 ______________________

Appeal from the ARMY Acquisition Logistics and Tech- nology in No. RFEADA784GH3. ______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Petitioner, which appears to have a pending matter be- fore the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, filed a petition for review from a letter from the Acting Enterprise Head of the Contracting Activity for the Department of the Army. In response to this court’s order to show cause, the Department of the Army urges dismissal. Petitioner urges this court to issue a protective order and alternatively re- quests that this court transfer this matter to the Board. Case: 25-1899 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2025

Although this court has jurisdiction to review final de- cisions of the Board, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10), the Board has not reached a final decision from which petitioner can ap- peal and petitioner has not asked for, let alone demon- strated entitlement to, interlocutory review. Further, petitioner has not demonstrated this court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from the letter, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295, and does not identify or seek transfer to another court that does. Instead, it seeks transfer to the Board, but it fails to identify any source of authority for this court to transfer a case to an administrative tribunal or a persuasive basis to do so even if it were permitted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (per- mitting transfer to another “court”); Schafer v. Dep’t of In- terior, 88 F.3d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The matter is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

September 26, 2025 Date

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

Case: 25-1899 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DASHTI SANAT LOGISTICS AND GENERAL CONTRACTING, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent ______________________

2025-1899 ______________________

Appeal from the ARMY Acquisition Logistics and Tech- nology in No. RFEADA784GH3. ______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Petitioner, which appears to have a pending matter be- fore the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, filed a petition for review from a letter from the Acting Enterprise Head of the Contracting Activity for the Department of the Army. In response to this court’s order to show cause, the Department of the Army urges dismissal. Petitioner urges this court to issue a protective order and alternatively re- quests that this court transfer this matter to the Board. Case: 25-1899 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/26/2025

Although this court has jurisdiction to review final de- cisions of the Board, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10), the Board has not reached a final decision from which petitioner can ap- peal and petitioner has not asked for, let alone demon- strated entitlement to, interlocutory review. Further, petitioner has not demonstrated this court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal from the letter, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295, and does not identify or seek transfer to another court that does. Instead, it seeks transfer to the Board, but it fails to identify any source of authority for this court to transfer a case to an administrative tribunal or a persuasive basis to do so even if it were permitted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (per- mitting transfer to another “court”); Schafer v. Dep’t of In- terior, 88 F.3d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The matter is dismissed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

September 26, 2025 Date

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dashti Sanat Logistics and General Contracting v. Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dashti-sanat-logistics-and-general-contracting-v-army-cafc-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack