Opinion ID: 209417
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tamerlane III

Text: After both primary period and extended period claims were dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims in Tamerlane II, Park Terrace and Mullica filed a motion to amend judgment, solely with respect to the extended period claims. On April 3, 2008, the court issued its Order on Motion to Amend Judgment. Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 81 Fed.Cl. 511 (2008) ( Tamerlane III ). The court found that Plaintiffs' motion appear[ed] to advance claims for breach of the incentive equity loan contracts [12] and not just breach of the original pre-1979 loan agreements. Id. at 513. The court held that the parties' June 22, 2005 complaint is not reasonably susceptible [to] amendment to assert breach of contract claims with respect to the incentive equity loans, as such claims would appear to state separate and independent causes of action. Id. at 513 n. 1. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to amend judgment as to the extended period claims. Id. at 513-14. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).