D'Andrea Bros. v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 205
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- CRADA (five-year) between D’Andrea Brothers and NSC governing HooAH! bars; exclusive trademark license to D’Andrea with government reservation for governmental, non-commercial uses.
- Negotiations culminated in 2004; Natick declined to renew the CRADA in 2007 amid disputes over trademark use and branding changes.
- DSCP procurement processes bought HooAH!-brand bars for MREs and dining facilities from multiple manufacturers; bars used for government purposes.
- Plaintiff asserted three claims: (I) express contract breach; (II) implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (III) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
- Court held the CRADA is a contract under Tucker Act; money damages presumptively available for breach; summary judgment limited to some issues while others remained contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether money damages are available for breach of the CRADA under the Tucker Act | D’Andrea argues presumption of money damages applies to government contracts | The FTTA restricts funds and relief; money damages not available | Money damages are available; Tucker Act jurisdiction exists |
| Whether government breached express terms by allowing others to use HooAH! for government purposes | Plaintiff claims exclusive license covered all sales, including government purchases | Government reserved right to use trademarks for governmental purposes | No breach; CRADA reserved government use rights; summary judgment for government on Count I |
| Whether government breached implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Government hindered commercialization by partnering with others and disparaging plaintiff | No breach based on CRADA scope; some actions may not violate covenant | Partial denial of summary judgment; disputes as to cooperation and “bad-mouthing” preclude full relief; government not entitled to summary judgment on this aspect |
| Whether Count III (tort) has Tucker Act jurisdiction as a breach-derived claim | Tort claim arises from contract, jurisdiction should attach | Tort claim is beyond scope if not linked to contract | Yes, jurisdiction exists; tort claim arises from contract and is within Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839 (U.S. 1996) (damages as default remedy for breach of government contracts)
- Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (presumption of damages available in government contracts)
- Stovall v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 696 (2006) (cites Winstar lineage for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Spectrum Sciences v. United States, 84 Fed.Cl. 716 (2008) (CRADA treated as contract under Tucker Act; consider statute in interpretation)
- H.H.O., Inc. v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 703 (1985) (guides jurisdiction where contract-related tort claims arise)