# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 14

- 228C

(Fi l ed: October 2 , 2014 )

************************************

*

VANESSA BROOKS *

Doing business as *

BORROWED TIME *

ENTERERPRISES

, INC., *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

*************************************

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Plaintiff Vanessa Brooks, doing business as Borrowed Time Enterprises

, Inc.,

filed her Complaint on March 25, 2014. Plaint iff vaguely alleges that she had a contract

to provide supplies to the Government and that upon delivery of those supplies, the

Government rejected the delivery as being incorrect

. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff believes the

delivery was wrongly rejected and see ks damages for breach of contract in the amount of

$10,090.00. Id. at 2. On May 27, 2014, the Government filed its Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“ RCFC ”) 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted . Plaintiff filed her Response on September

30, 2014. 1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grant s the Government’s Motion to

Dismiss.

RCFC 12(b)(6) allows for the dismissal of a complaint if, assuming the truth of all

the allegations, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as a

matter of law. Lindsay v. United States , 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002). When

analyzing a motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), the Court must also accept as true

the complaint's undisputed factual allegations and should construe them in a light most

1 This case had previously been dismissed without prejudice for failure to

prosecute due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to timely become admitted to practice before

the United States Court of Federal Claims. Thereafter, Counsel became admitted to

practic e on August 22, 2014, and in light of this, the Court granted his Motion for

Reconsideration and reopen ed the case on August 25, 2014.favorable to plaintiff, Gould, Inc. v. United States , 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (F ed. Cir. 1991),

and "the [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level." Bell Altantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court

is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a fac tual allegation.”

Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks omitted). “[N]aked assertion[s]” devoid of

“further factual enhancement” do not suffice. Id. at 557; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (noting that the pleading standards deman d more than “unadorned,

the

- defendant

- unlawfu lly harmed

- me accusation[s].”).

Plaintiff’s vague complaint , which contains only three numbered paragraphs, does

not rise to the pleading standard required by Twombly and Iqbal

. Plaintiff has failed to

includ e any details of the contract in the pleadings, including what supplies the contract

called for, which branch of government the Plaintiff contracted with, what supplies were

delivered to the Defendan t when they were rejected, what the obligations of eac h p arty

were under the contract, the total value of the contract, and any argument for why

$10,090.00 is the appropriate amount of damages for the alleged breach.

Additionally, a s RCFC 9(k) provides, “[i] n pleading a claim founded on a contract

or treaty, a party must identify the substantive provisions of the contract or treaty on

which the party relies. In lieu of a description, the party may annex to the complaint a

copy of the contract or treaty, indicating the relevant provisions.” Plaintiff has not cit ed

to any specific passage or substantive provision of the contract nor has a copy of the

contract been attached to the Complaint.

Thus, because the Complaint contains an insufficient amount of information

necessary for this case to proceed, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is directe d to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

s/ Edward J. Damich

EDWARD J. DAMICH

Senior Judge

2