UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) JAMES A. WASHINGTON, ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1502 (JR ) ) P ETE GEREN, ) Secre tary of the Ar m y, ) ) Defendan t. ) ____________________________________) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Pr o s e pla int if

f Jame s A . Wa sh ington

ha s f ile d a mot ion se e kin gle ave to a

me nd his complaint a sec ond time in order to asse rt a bre ach of contra ct claim. B eca

use this court lac ks jurisdiction to entertain the bre ach of contra ct claim and it is the sole re maining c laim, it will be dismiss ed without prejudice to file it in the court wher e jurisdiction would be prope r, the United State s Co ur

t of F e de ra l Cla ims
. Back ground Washington sued his for

mer e mploy er, the Secre tary of the Ar my , alleg ing that the defe ndant had discr iminated and re taliated ag ainst him. See Am. Compl. The retaliation and discrimination claims did not survive the defe ndant’s dispositive motion. See Mem. Op. and Orde r (De c. 18, 2009). Among the adver se ac tions W ashing ton alleg ed, wa s the “[v] iolation of [a] 2 00 4 .
. . . F e de ra l Co ur t se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt p ri or to Jul y 20 07 .” Am . Co mpl . ¶

7R. As a reta liation or discrimination claim, the alleg ed bre ach of the prior se ttlement had not been exhausted and could not proc eed. Id. L ibera lly construed, how ever , see H aines v. Kerne r, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the a lleg ation that the def endant ha d violated a 2004 f eder al cour

t2

settlement could be r ead a s a bre ach of contra ct claim, eve n if wholly conclusory . There fore , the plaintiff was grante d time to amend his complaint to state a bre ach of contra ct claim. See Me m. Op. and Or der ( Dec . 18, 2009). The plaintiff f

iled a propose d amende d complaint entitled “B rea ch of Contra ct,” that seeks $900,000 a

nd other re lief. See Docke t Entry 33 at 3-22. The defe ndant opposes the motion to amend, arguing that this court lacks jurisdiction over the ne wly stated cla im, and that in any case the newly

stated cla im fails to state a cla im upon which relief may be grante d. See generally, S ur - R e p l y. Discussion Contract ac tions ag ainst the United States in excess of $10,000 fa ll within t he exclusive jur isd ic tio n o f t

he Un ite d St ate s Co ur

t of F e de ra l Cla ims
. The United States Court of F eder al Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgme nt upon any

claim ag ainst the United States founde d either upon the Constitution, or any

Act of Congress or a

ny regulation of an e x ecutive depar tment, or upon any

express or implied contrac t with the United States, or for liq uid ate d o r u

nli qu idate d d ama g e s in

c a se s n ot s ound ingin t or t. F or the purp os e of this para g raph, a

n express or implied contrac t with the Army and Air F orce Ex chang e Servic e, Na

vy Ex chang es, Mar ine Corps Exchang es, Coast Guar d Ex chang es, or Exchang e Councils of the National Aerona utics and Space Administration shall be considere d an express or implied contra ct with the United State s. 28 U. S.C. § 1 49 1; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (providing , amongother thing s, that a district court may exercise jurisdiction over contra ct claims ag ainst the United States only if they do not exceed $10,000 in amount). The District of Columbia Circuit has held that “the jurisdiction of the Court of F eder al Claims is ex clusive whe n a plaintiff se eks more tha n $10,000 in damag es.” Gree nhill v. Spellings, 48 2 F .3 d 5 69 , 5 72 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 7) . In th is c a se , b e c a us e the on lyIn tw o e arl ie r c a se s, the Un ite d St ate s Co ur t of Ap pe a ls f

or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia 1 Circuit refe rre d to ancillary jurisdiction. I n Shaffer v. Vene man, 325 F.3d 370, 373 ( D.C. Cir. 2 0 0 3 ), qu o t i n g Kokkone n v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 51 1 U .S. 37 5 ( 19 94 ), the Cir c uit n o t e d th ate x e r c i s i n gan c i l l ar

y j ur i s d i c t i o nm ay b e a

p p r o p r i at e e i th e r

“ ‘ t o p e r m i td i s p o s i t i o nb y a sin g le c ourt

of c la ims that are , in

va ry ingre sp e c ts a

nd de g re e s, fa c tua lly

int e rd e pe nd e nt, ’” or

“ ‘t o e n a b l e a c o urtt o f un c t i o ns u c c e s s f

u l l y, th ati s , t o m an a g e i t s p r o c e e d i n g s , v i n d i c at e i t s a u th o r i ty, and ef fec tuate its decr ees,’ ” Shaffer, 3 2 5 F. 3 d at3 7 3 (qu o t i n g Kokkone n, 511 U.S. at 379-380). In Rochon v . Gonzales, 43 8 F .3 d 1 21 1, 12 15 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 6) , th e Cir c uit re mand e d th e c a se with instructions to t he district cour t to determine whe ther it had a ncillary jurisdiction over the c ontr a c t c la im d

ue to t he fa c tua l inte rd e pe nd e nc e of c ontr a c t and

oth e r t he c la ims . A s th e Cir c uit has since c hara cter ized the Court of Fe dera l Claims’ jurisdi ction as “e x clusive,” Gree nhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d at 572, 573, one may rea sonably

doubt the continued viability of anc illary jurisdiction in contract c ases a g ainst the United States. But see Pe rry v. Snowbarger , 5 90 F. S u p p . 2 d 9 0 , 9 3 ( D
. D
. C
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( e x e r c i s i n gan c i l l ar y j ur i s d i c t i o nt o e n f

o r c e i t s o w nd e c r e e s )
. In this case, ther e is no nee d to exercise anc illary jurisdiction because (a) this court never considere d any

fac ts relatingto the alleg ed bre ach of settlement agree ment, and (b) the settlement agree ment itself provides a me ans for enfor cingthat agree ment in this court that the parties have not opted to exercise. 3 rema ining c laim, as amende d, “explicitly . . . seeks money

damag es in excess of $10,000” f or a brea ch of c ontrac t with the fede ral g overnme nt, “jurisdiction rests exclusively within the Court of Fe dera l Claims.” Id. 482 F.3d at 573. See also Frank lin-Mason v. Pe nn, 616 F. Supp. 2d 97, 100 (D.D.C. 2009) ( deter

mining that the Court of F eder al Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s a ction for br eac h of prior se ttlement ag ree ment and notingthat the discussion of a district court’s a

ncillary jurisdiction in Kokkone n v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. , 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994) wa s not in the contextof a f eder al def endant)
. 1 There fore , beca

use this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the c ontrac t claim for $900,000 in damag es and othe r re lief, the c laim for bre ach of contra ct will be dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff ma y file his claim for br eac h of contra ct in the United States Court of Fe dera l Claims. All other c laims have a lrea dy been dismissed. See Mem. Op. and O rder (De c. 18, 2009). The ref

ore, this ca se will be dismissed.4

A sepa rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.

J AMES ROBERTSON Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge