Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01578/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Ogunniyi
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VICTOR OGUNNIYI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1578

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00581-MBH, Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________ 

Decided: July 12, 2016

______________________ 

VICTOR OGUNNIYI, Lemon Grove, CA, pro se.

RETA EMMA BEZAK, 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.,

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1578 Document: 17-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/12/2016
2 OGUNNIYI v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Victor Ogunniyi brought contract and tort claims 

against the United States based on a 2012 contract between the United States and Mr. Ogunniyi’s company. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Court of Federal Claims cannot hear 

tort claims, and because Mr. Ogunniyi was neither a 

party nor a third-party beneficiary of the 2012 contract, 

we affirm.

I 

On June 8, 2015, Mr. Ogunniyi filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the 

United States Navy breached a contract formed in late 

2012 with Commissioning Solutions Global LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company (the Company), for oil 

flushing services (the 2012 Contract). The complaint also 

alleged that the United States committed several torts, 

including fraud, conspiracy, unfair competition, and 

intentional misrepresentation. 

On December 10, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims

dismissed all claims. It held that Mr. Ogunniyi could not 

pursue his contract claims because he did not personally 

contract with the Navy, nor did the 2012 Contract render 

him a third-party beneficiary. The court dismissed the 

remaining claims as sounding in tort, and thus not within 

the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional grant. The Court of Federal Claims found in the alternative that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Ogunniyi (or the Company) had already 

appealed the same claims to the Armed Services Board of 

Contract Appeals. Mr. Ogunniyi moved for reconsideration, which the court denied on January 19, 2016. This 

appeal followed.

II

 “We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ 

grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

Case: 16-1578 Document: 17-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/12/2016
OGUNNIYI v. US 3

jurisdiction.” Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. 

United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims may 

hear “claim[s] against the United States founded either 

upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any 

regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for 

liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding 

in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

Ordinarily, “[t]o maintain a cause of action under the

Tucker Act based on a contract, [a plaintiff] must show 

that there is a contract directly between [him]self and the 

Government[.]” Estes Express Lines v. United States, 

739 F.3d 689, 693 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A plaintiff may also

sue as a third-party beneficiary, but only if the contract 

“reflects the express or implied intention . . . to benefit the 

party directly.” Sioux Honey Ass’n v. Hartford Fire Ins. 

Co., 672 F.3d 1041, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Glass v. 

United States, 258 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir.), opinion 

amended on reh’g, 273 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that 

the complaint alleged a contract formed between the 

United States and the Company, not Mr. Ogunniyi. 

Mr. Ogunniyi’s argument that he has “privity of contract 

[with the Navy] inherent in his capacity as the sole owner 

of” the Company is wrong; the Company and Mr. Ogunniyi are not legally identical entities (absent certain exceptions not implicated here). Appellant’s Br. at 23; see La. 

Stat. Ann. § 12:1320 (“A member . . . of a limited liability 

company is not a proper party to a proceeding by or 

against a limited liability company. . . .”); FDIC v. United 

States, 342 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Neither [the 

government’s] knowledge, . . . [n]or the [plaintiffs’] position as stockholders in Karnes, made them parties to 

those arrangements. A shareholder generally does not 

have standing to assert a breach of contract claim on 

behalf of the corporation.”). The trial court also correctly 

Case: 16-1578 Document: 17-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/12/2016
4 OGUNNIYI v. US

concluded that Mr. Ogunniyi’s allegations that he owned 

the Company and represented it in its dealings with the 

Navy do not establish that the parties intended him as a 

direct beneficiary of the 2012 Contract. See S. Cal. Fed. 

Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. United States, 422 F.3d 1319, 1332 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Having chosen to limit their personal 

liability by adopting a corporate form, we have refused to 

allow shareholders to rely on their involvement in the 

negotiation process [with a government contract] . . . to 

alter their chosen legal status.”); FDIC, 342 F.3d at 1320 

(stockholder status insufficient to confer third-party 

beneficiary rights). And Mr. Ogunniyi is “not [a] third 

party beneficiar[y] merely because the contract would 

benefit [him].” FDIC, 342 F.3d at 1319. Accordingly, the 

Court of Federal Claims correctly found that it lacked 

jurisdiction over Mr. Ogunniyi’s contract claims.

The trial court was also correct to dismiss the remaining tort claims because “[t]he plain language of the Tucker Act excludes from the Court of Federal Claims 

jurisdiction claims sounding in tort.” Rick’s Mushroom 

Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 

2008); see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (the Court of Federal 

Claims has jurisdiction over claims against the United 

States “not sounding in tort”). 

In light of the foregoing, we need not address whether 

the court also lacked jurisdiction because Mr. Ogunniyi or 

the Company had presented the same claims to the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Because the 

Court of Federal Claims properly found that it lacked 

jurisdiction over all of Mr. Ogunniyi’s claims, we affirm.1

 

1 Appellant submitted a “Motion To Submit Transcripts” on March 28, 2016. We construe that as a motion 

to take judicial notice of the record in the trial court and, 

hereby, grant the motion.

Case: 16-1578 Document: 17-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/12/2016
OGUNNIYI v. US 5

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 16-1578 Document: 17-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/12/2016