Case Name: TWIN CITIES AIR SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the District of Maine
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-17
Citations: 195 F. Supp. 2d 242
Docket Number: No. CIV. 02-06-P-H
Parties: TWIN CITIES AIR SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 195
Pages: 242–243

Head Matter:
TWIN CITIES AIR SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.
No. CIV. 02-06-P-H.
United States District Court, D. Maine.
April 17, 2002.
Peter M. Garcia, Skelton, Taintor & Abbot, Auburn, ME, for Plaintiff.
Evan Roth, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, ME, for Defendant.

Opinion:
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
HORNBY, Chief Judge.
The Postal Service's motion to dismiss is Granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This is a lawsuit against the Postal Service seeking money damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff is proceeding under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 ("CDA"), 41 U.S.C. § 601-13 (1994). Compl. ¶ 3. That statute vests exclusive jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims. 41 U.S.C. § 609(a)(1). Although the First Circuit has not spoken on the issue, there has been abundant caselaw from other circuits debating whether this jurisdictional provision of the CDA supplants the pre-existing provision of the Postal Reorganization Act ("PRA"), 39 U.S.C. § 409(a) (1994), that otherwise placed jurisdiction in United States District Courts. Compare Campanella v. Commerce Exchange Bank, 137 F.3d 885, 890-91 (6th Cir.1998), Kroll v. United States, 58 F.3d 1087, 1092-93 (6th Cir.1995), A & S Council Oil Co. v. Lader, 56 F.3d 234, 241-42 (D.C.Cir.1995), United States v. J & E Salvage Co., 55 F.3d 985, 987-88 (4th Cir.1995), and Hayes v. United States Postal Service, 859 F.2d 354, 356-57 (5th Cir.1988), with Wright v. United States Postal Service, 29 F.3d 1426, 1429-31 (9th Cir.1994), In re Liberty Construction, 9 F.3d 800, 801-02 (9th Cir.1993), and Marine Coatings of Alabama, Inc. v. United States, 932 F.2d 1370, 1377 (11th Cir.1991). See also Licata v. United States Postal Service, 33 F.3d 259, 264 n. 6 (3d Cir.1994) (discussing, in dicta, the relationship between the CDA and the PRA). Suffice it to say that the cases favoring the CDA are more persuasive, especially A & S Council Oil Co. v. Lader, 56 F.3d 234 (D.C.Cir.1995). Nothing would be gained by spilling more ink here.
So Ordered.
. The Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1994), granting concurrent jurisdiction in United States District Courts, does not apply because the plaintiff seeks more than $10,000.