Court Opinion

ID: 9474332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:54:24.512769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:01.554681
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge,
concurring-in-part.
I join the majority except in the explanation of jurisdiction.
On the question of jurisdiction, I believe it may be helpful to point out to litigants that jurisdiction in this type of case should be pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) and (a)(3). In United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed.Cir.1983), this court held in banc:
Subsection (a)(3) thus provides a new remedy in respect of a particular type of claim (contract) over which the court was granted jurisdiction in (a)(1).
Thus, subject matter jurisdiction over a claim alleging breach of an implied contract to consider a responsive bid fairly and honestly rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), not (a)(3). The latter subsection, as exhaustively analyzed in Grimberg, is a grant of additional power to the Claims Court in a pre-award implied contract case. I do not endorse the Claims Court opinion referenced in note 3 because it fails to follow the Grimberg analysis.
In sum, subject matter jurisdiction is found in (a)(1) (“The U.S. Claims Court shall have jurisdiction to render judgment ... upon any ... implied contract with the U.S.”) and possible “equitable relief” in connection with that subject matter in (a)(3).