Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01568/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry D. Mallek
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BARRY D. MALLEK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1568

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00890-JFM, Senior Judge James F. 

Merow.

______________________ 

Decided: June 14, 2016

______________________ 

BARRY D. MALLEK, Las Vegas, NV, pro se. 

SARAH CHOI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., REGINALD

T. BLADES, JR.

______________________ 

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1568 Document: 11-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/14/2016
2 MALLEK v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Barry Mallek appeals from a decision of the Court of 

Federal Claims dismissing his complaint as time-barred 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Mallek entered into a settlement agreement with 

the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in 2006. 

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, DHS purchased 

an annuity contract for Mr. Mallek, which would provide 

Mr. Mallek monthly payments guaranteed for 30 years 

and for the life of Mr. Mallek. The settlement agreement 

stated that the annuity payments were non-assignable. 

On June 6, 2008, a California state judge approved a 

stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”), 

which was signed by Mr. Mallek and his former wife. 

Under the QDRO, Mr. Mallek assigned a portion of his 

monthly annuity payments to Ms. Mallek. On August 18, 

2015, Mr. Mallek filed a complaint in the Court of Federal 

Claims alleging that DHS breached the settlement 

agreement by allowing the assignment of a portion of his 

monthly annuity payment. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Mallek’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that 

Mr. Mallek’s complaint was filed outside of the six-year 

statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501. Specifically, the Court of Federal Claims found that 

Mr. Mallek was aware of the alleged breach—the assignment of his annuity payments—as of June 6, 2008, the 

date the court entered the QDRO signed by Mr. Mallek. 

As such, the Court of Federal Claims found that 

Mr. Mallek’s claim accrued on that date, yet his complaint 

was filed more than seven years later.

Mr. Mallek appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Case: 16-1568 Document: 11-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/14/2016
MALLEK v. US 3

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a dismissal by the Court of Federal 

Claims for lack of jurisdiction. FloorPro, Inc. v. United 

States, 680 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Every claim 

of which the United States Court of Federal Claims has 

jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is 

filed within six years after such claim first accrues.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2501. “This six-year limitations period is 

jurisdictional and may not be waived or tolled.” FloorPro, 

680 F.3d at 1380–81 (citing John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 130, 136–39 (2008)). A claim 

against the government generally accrues “when all the 

events which fix the government’s alleged liability have 

occurred and the plaintiff was or should have been aware 

of their existence.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. 

United States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that 

Mr. Mallek’s claim accrued on June 6, 2008. The assignment of Mr. Mallek’s annuity to his former wife constituted the alleged breach. Mr. Mallek was aware of this 

assignment as of June 6, 2008, as evidenced by his signature on the QDRO. Mr. Mallek argues, however, that his 

claim is not barred by § 2501 because, under the continuing claim doctrine, DHS continues to breach the settlement agreement every month that his annuity payment is 

diverted to his former wife. We disagree.

“In order for the continuing claim doctrine to apply, 

the plaintiff’s claim must be inherently susceptible to 

being broken down into a series of independent and 

distinct events or wrongs, each having its own associated 

damages.” Brown Park Estates–Fairfield Dev. Co. v. 

United States, 127 F.3d 1449, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In 

Brown, we explained that there was not a continuing 

claim where “plaintiffs really only pointed to one alleged 

wrong by the government, which accrued all at once at 

one point in time, even though it may have had later 

Case: 16-1568 Document: 11-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/14/2016
4 MALLEK v. US

adverse effects.” Id. at 1457. We further explained that 

even nonpayment of annuities was not a continuing claim, 

but merely damages, if it resulted from a single alleged 

violation by the government. Id. Similarly here, DHS’s 

alleged breach is not continuing in nature, but was fixed 

when Mr. Mallek’s annuity was assigned to his former 

wife. 

We therefore agree with the Court of Federal Claims 

that Mr. Mallek’s August 18, 2015 complaint, filed more 

than seven years after his claim accrued on June 6, 2008, 

is time-barred under § 2501. We have considered 

Mr. Mallek’s remaining arguments and find them unconvincing. As such, we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Mallek’s 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 16-1568 Document: 11-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/14/2016