McLarnon v. United States

Opinion

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 25-2134C

(Filed: August 25, 2026) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

*************************************** EDWARD S. MCLARNON, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*************************************** ORDER

This Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s original complaint, but gave Plaintiff the opportunity to seek leave to file an amended complaint addressing his claim for breach of contract. See Opinion (ECF 7); see also Order (ECF 9) (extending Plaintiff’s time to file); Order (ECF 14) (same). Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. See Am. Compl. (ECF 15). It is not accompanied by a motion for leave, but I construe the filing as requesting leave.

To state a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must “plead[] facts upon which a valid claim can rest.” El Bey v. United States, 152 Fed. Cl. 777, 780 (2021) (quoting Stroughter v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 755, 760 (2009)); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “[A valid] contract with the United States requires: ‘(1) mutuality of intent, (2) consideration, (3) an unambiguous offer and acceptance, and (4) actual authority on the part of the government’s representative to bind the government in contract.’” See Goodnow v. United States, No. 2022-1841, 2022 WL 16943986 at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2022) (quoting Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint repeatedly asserts that the government breached a contract, it does not include facts sufficient to suggest that any contract existed, let alone to “identify the substantive provisions of the contract … on which [he] relies.” See RCFC 9(k).

This Court denies leave to amend when amendment would be futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 183 (1962); Steffen v. United States, 995 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Chapman v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 216, 219 (2017). Leave to amend is therefore DENIED. Because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on any theory within this Court’s jurisdiction, the case is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Stephen S. Schwartz STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ Judge