Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02224/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Kalos
Appellant
Veron Kalos
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PETER KALOS, VERON KALOS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-2224

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00880-SGB, Judge Susan G. 

Braden.

______________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2016 

______________________ 

PETER KALOS, Broad Run, VA, pro se.

VERON KALOS, Broad Run, VA, pro se.

KARA WESTERCAMP, 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., 

ALLISON KIDD-MILLER. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-2224 Document: 14-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2016
2 KALOS v. US

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Peter and Veron Kalos (“Appellants”) appeal a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

(“Claims Court”) dismissing their complaint as time 

barred. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Appellants are the owners and guarantors of Brickwood Contractors, Inc. (“Brickwood”). On July 25, 2003, 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) awarded Contract 

No. J202802c-11 to Brickwood to repair and repaint a 

water storage tank at the Federal Correctional Institution 

in Loretto, Pennsylvania. The BOP terminated the contract on September 15, 2005 because Brickwood failed to 

adequately perform its contractual obligations. After 

terminating the contract, the BOP sought compensation 

from Brickwood’s surety, Greenwich Insurance Company 

(“Greenwich”). Greenwich paid the BOP $770,000 to 

resolve the dispute. Greenwich then sought repayment 

from Brickwood and its guarantors, the Appellants. 

Brickwood’s performance bond with Greenwich was 

secured with real property owned by the Appellants. 

When Brickwood was unable to repay Greenwich in cash, 

Greenwich foreclosed on Appellants’ real property. 

On August 14, 2015, Appellants filed suit against the 

United States in the Claims Court, seeking a declaration 

that Contract No. J202802c-11 terminated on September 

15, 2005 with no money due to the government. Appellants contend Greenwich would not have foreclosed on 

their real property had the government not terminated 

the contract with cause. The government moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that Appellants’ complaint was time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The 

Claims Court granted the motion, holding that Appellants 

Case: 16-2224 Document: 14-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2016
KALOS v. US 3

failed to bring suit within six years after their claim first 

accrued. Appellants moved for reconsideration, and the 

Claims Court denied the motion. Appellants appeal. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

The Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims 

“unless the petition thereon is filed within six years after 

such claim first arises.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501. A claim arises 

“when all the events have occurred which fix the liability 

of the Government and entitle the claimant to institute an 

action.” FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, 680 F.3d 1377, 

1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see Bianchi v. United States, 475 

F.3d 1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Whether the Claims 

Court possesses jurisdiction over a claim is a question of 

law we review de novo. FloorPro, 680 F.d at 1381.

Appellants seek a declaration that Contract 

No. J202802c-11 terminated on September 15, 2005 with 

no money due to the government. Their claim accrued on 

September 15, 2005, the day the contract was terminated. 

Appellants did not file the underlying lawsuit until August 14, 2015, nearly ten years later. This falls outside 

the Claims Court’s six-year jurisdictional window. See id. 

Even if the statute of limitations did not accrue until the 

BOP settled with Greenwich, Appellants’ claim is still 

untimely because that settlement occurred by at least 

July 2008. 

Appellants contend that despite their near ten-year 

wait to file suit, the Claims Court has jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1494. However, § 1494 does not toll the sixyear statute of limitations under § 2501. See Bianchi v. 

United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 442, 453–55 (2005), aff’d in 

relevant part 475 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, 

the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to hear Appellants’ 

claim and properly granted the government’s motion to 

dismiss. 

Case: 16-2224 Document: 14-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2016
4 KALOS v. US

CONCLUSION

The order from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2224 Document: 14-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/09/2016