Case: Maurice L. Bianchi, d/b/a M. Bianchi of California v. The United States
Abbreviation: Bianchi v. United States
Decision Date: 1982-06-11
Docket Number: No. 73-82C
Citation: 231 Ct. Cl. 729
Volume: 231
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Maurice L. Bianchi, d/b/a M. Bianchi of California v. The United States
Judges: Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Davis and Bennett, Judges.
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
No. 73-82C.
June 11, 1982
Maurice L. Bianchi, d/b/a M. Bianchi of California v. The United States
Gerald N. Gordon, attorney of record, for plaintiff. Paul, Gordon & Friedland, of counsel.
Michael J. Denton, with whom was Assistant Attorney General J. Paul McGrath, for defendant.
Before Friedman, Chief Judge, Davis and Bennett, Judges.

Opinion:
per curiam:
The "direct access" petition in this case alleges a wrongful termination of a partial delivery of coats under a government contract. Other parts of the same contract were terminated for default, as to which actions plaintiff has filed four claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (asbca). Plaintiff also held two other contracts for the manufacture of clothing for the Armed Forces, as to which the plaintiff and defendant have claims. In all, plaintiff received ten final contracting officer's decisions, nine of which have been appealed to the asbca, while the tenth was appealed to this court in the instant petition.
Defendant moves to transfer the instant claim to the asbca so that it may be consolidated with plaintiffs other claims now pending before the Board. Defendant asserts that there are a substantial number of common issues, and that transfer will be in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties. Plaintiff does not oppose.
We grant defendant's motion and transfer this case to the asbca under section 10(d) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 609(d). See, e.g., Roubin & Janeiro, Inc. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 580 (1981). It is unnecessary to retain jurisdiction in this court or to preserve plaintiffs right to proceed here on its "direct access" claim.