Opinion ID: 628626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Default Termination Challenge

Text: 29 The Claims Court dismissed the portion of Sharman's original complaint seeking declaratory judgment that the government's termination for default was unlawful, because it was unaccompanied by a monetary claim. 11 This ruling was correct at the time it was made because Overall Roofing required such a result. 929 F.2d at 689. Section 907(b)(1) of Public Law No. 102-572, enacted on October 29, 1992, however, effectively overrules Overall Roofing and grants the Claims Court jurisdiction to determine whether a termination for default is proper. Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub.L. No. 102-572, Sec. 907(b), 106 Stat. 4506, 4519. 12 This new jurisdiction applies retroactively to actions that were still awaiting final judgment upon enactment, as this one was. 13 30 Therefore, the Claims Court now has jurisdiction to address the contractor's independent challenge to the default termination. 14 In light of our decision reversing the money judgment in favor of the government, the contractor's challenge to the government's termination for default is not moot and therefore must be remanded for decision. 15