NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

THOMAS NUSSBAUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2020-1170

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-00376-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

Decided: November 17, 2021

______________________

THOMAS NUSSBAUM, Millbrae, CA, pro se. 

 SONIA MARIE ORFIELD, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, DEBORAH ANN BYNUM, MARTIN F.

HOCKEY, JR.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2021
2 NUSSBAUM v. US

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Thomas Nussbaum appeals the dismissal of 

his court action by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upon 

finding that Nussbaum’s action is untimely pursuant to

41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(3). For the reasons explained below, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the Federal Correctional Institution in Victorville, California (“FCI Victorville”) sought repair work 

on some boilers, and Nussbaum submitted a bid to perform 

the work. See Nussbaum v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 5, 

8 (2019) (citing Nussbaum v. United States, No. 19-376C, 

ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) Ex. 1 at 2)). According to Nussbaum,

he learned that FCI Victorville wanted to award the project 

to Cal Inc., a company with a preexisting General Services 

Administration (“GSA”) Schedule Contract. Id. (citing 

Compl. at 6, Ex. 11 at 2). Nussbaum sent his bid proposal

to Cal Inc. Id. (citing Compl. at 17). FCI Victorville issued 

a purchase order to Cal Inc. under the GSA Schedule Contract, using Cal Inc. as a “broker” for the boiler project. Id.

(citing Compl. at 6). Nussbaum became a subcontractor to 

Cal Inc. and supplied materials and performed construction work. Id. 

During construction, disputes arose. After the project 

was completed around 2003, Nussbaum sued Cal Inc. in 

state court, alleging fraud and other claims. Id. (citing 

Compl. at 7, Ex. 7 at 4). The state court action settled for 

$80,000. See id. (citing Compl. at 12, 18). As part of the 

settlement, Cal Inc. agreed to support Nussbaum in seeking payment of costs related to change orders from 

FCI Victorville. Id. (citing Compl. at 18, Ex. 6). In January 2010, Nussbaum sent Form SF 301 requests to 

1 Standard Form 30 (SF 30), titled “Amendment of 

Solicitation/Modification of Contract,” is used for amending 

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2021
NUSSBAUM v. US 3

U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) offices in Dublin, California, and Grand Prairie, Texas, claiming payment for the 

change order costs. Id. (citing Compl. at 12). The contracting officer, Ms. Arakaki, never responded to Nussbaum. 

Id. On March 10, 2010, John Wenkman from the Grand 

Prairie office issued a denial of Nussbaum’s claim on the 

grounds that the request should have come from the contract holder, Cal Inc., not Nussbaum. Id. (citing Compl. 

at 7, Ex. 3 at 2).

Nine years passed, and in March 2019, Nussbaum sued

BOP in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). 

Id. at 7. Nussbaum asserted four causes of action: 

(1) fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) unjust 

enrichment. Id. (citing Compl. at 15–17).

The government moved to dismiss on grounds that the 

action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2501.2 Id. The Claims Court agreed 

that Nussbaum’s complaint was time-barred but clarified 

that § 2501 does not apply because Nussbaum’s action is 

governed by the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. 

§§ 7101–7109. The CDA sets time limitations for bringing 

an action, in this case six years to submit an administrative 

claim to a contracting officer, and one year after the contracting officer denies a claim to bring suit before the 

Claims Court. 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103(a)(4)(A), 7104(b)(1). The 

Claims Court determined that Nussbaum’s lawsuit was 

untimely under the applicable one-year statute of limitations because several years had passed since his 

or modifying purchase orders and contracts with the government. See FAR 53.243.

2 Generally, every claim brought before the Claims 

Court must be “filed within six years after such claim first 

accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2501.

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 3 Filed: 11/17/2021
4 NUSSBAUM v. US

Form SF 30 administrative requests were denied. Nussbaum, 145 Fed. Cl. at 12–13. The Claims Court also determined that equitable tolling did not apply.3 Id. at 13–14. 

The Claims Court dismissed the action for failure to state 

a claim. Id. at 14. Nussbaum appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In appeals from the Claims Court, we review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340, 

1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Estate of Hage v. United 

States, 687 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Whether the 

Claims Court properly dismissed an action for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted is a question of law subject to de novo review. Turping v. United 

States, 913 F.3d 1060, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In reviewing 

a dismissal on the pleadings, “we must accept as true all 

the factual allegations in the complaint” and “must indulge 

all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant.” 

Sommers Oil Co. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1375, 1378 

(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

3 Whether the CDA’s one-year limitations period is 

subject to equitable tolling remains an open question. But

we agree with the Claims Court that equitable tolling was 

not available to Nussbaum in any circumstance. For equitable tolling to apply, Nussbaum is required to establish 

“(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and 

(2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way 

and prevented timely filing.” Menominee Indian Tribe of 

Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750, 755 (2016). The record does not support that Nussbaum has met those requirements. See Nussbaum, 145 Fed. Cl. at 14.

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 4 Filed: 11/17/2021
NUSSBAUM v. US 5

DISCUSSION

Nussbaum argues that the Claims Court misapprehended the facts of this case and, as a result, erred in its 

determination concerning the nature of the purchase order 

contract between FCI Victorville and Cal Inc. Appellant’s 

Br. 2. According to Nussbaum, this error led the Claims 

Court to find his claims time-barred under the CDA. Id. 

We disagree.

The CDA applies to any express or implied contract 

made by an executive agency for, among other things, the 

procurement of services or the procurement of construction. 41 U.S.C. § 7102(a). For disputes arising from such 

contracts, the CDA establishes an administrative appeal 

process that must be exhausted before filing suit in the 

Claims Court. See England v. The Swanson Grp., Inc., 

353 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A contractor who has 

a claim against the government must initiate the administrative process by submitting an administrative claim to 

the contracting officer, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1), “within 6 

years after the accrual of the claim,” 41 U.S.C. 

§ 7103(a)(4)(A).

Upon receipt of a contractor’s claim, the contracting officer must, within sixty days of receiving the claim, issue a 

decision or notify the contractor of the time within which a 

decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(f)(2). If a contracting officer fails to issue a decision within the prescribed period, such failure “is deemed to be a decision by 

the contracting officer denying the claim.” 41 U.S.C. 

§ 7103(f)(5). After a claim is denied, the contractor may 

appeal to an agency board or file suit before the Claims 

Court. 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a)–(b). Any such suit to the 

Claims Court must be brought within one year from receipt 

of the contracting officer’s denial. 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b)(3).

Nussbaum argues that no limitations period applies to 

his action because he has alleged that the contracting officer and others committed fraud, and that claims involving 

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 5 Filed: 11/17/2021
6 NUSSBAUM v. US

fraud have no time limitations. Appellant’s Br. 6–7 (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(B)). But Nussbaum’s reliance on 

41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(B) is misplaced. That provision applies to causes of action by the Federal Government against 

contractors that involve fraudulent claims. 41 U.S.C. 

§ 7103(a)(4)(B). Nussbaum’s claims against the government are not “claim[s] by the Federal Government against 

a contractor.” See id.

The Claims Court is correct that Nussbaum’s action is 

governed by 41 U.S.C. §§ 7103 and 7104. Under § 7103(a), 

Nussbaum made a timely filing before the contracting officer. See 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a); Nussbaum, 145 Fed. Cl. 

at 12–13. He was required under § 7104(b), however, to 

bring suit before the Claims Court within one year of denial 

of his claim by the contracting officer, which he failed to do. 

See 41 U.S.C. § 7104(b). Here, the record shows that Nussbaum filed suit at the Claims Court approximately nine 

years after he was denied by the contracting officer. See 

Nussbaum, 145 Fed. Cl. at 13. Consequently, the Claims 

Court was correct to dismiss the action as untimely.

Lastly, we note that Nussbaum’s causes of action would 

also be barred under § 2501. Section 2501 provides that 

any claim filed before the Claims Court must generally be 

brought within six years after it accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2501; 

see also Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nussbaum’s claims accrued no 

later than 2010, and this action was filed in 2019, approximately three years too late under § 2501.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the rest of Nussbaum’s arguments 

and find them without merit. The Claims Court correctly 

determined that this action is time-barred. We affirm the 

judgment of the Claims Court.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 6 Filed: 11/17/2021
NUSSBAUM v. US 7

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1170 Document: 59 Page: 7 Filed: 11/17/2021