Godfrey v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 689
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Sylvan Godfrey, a member of the Historical Accounting Class in the Cobell settlement, alleged he was underpaid: he claimed to have received only $880 rather than the $1,000 per-person payment provided by the December 9, 2009 Settlement Agreement.
- The Settlement Agreement required the United States to deposit funds into designated trust accounts but expressly disclaimed any Government role or liability for distribution of those funds; Garden City Group, Inc. (GCG) was appointed Claims Administrator to handle distributions.
- Godfrey sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims asserting statutory, constitutional, and contract claims based on the alleged underpayment; the court retained jurisdiction only over the breach claim tied to the Settlement Agreement.
- The Government moved for summary judgment arguing (1) it had no contractual duty to distribute payments (that duty rested with GCG) and (2) Godfrey in fact received a $1,000 check mailed December 31, 2012 and cashed January 8, 2013.
- Godfrey disputed receipt and argued fabrication; he also sought leave to amend to add GCG and individual GCG employees as defendants, to assert additional underpayment claims (including as an heir), to convert to a class action, and to permit a nonattorney third‑party representative.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Government, holding (a) the Settlement Agreement absolved the Government of distribution duties and (b) in any event Godfrey had been paid; the court denied leave to amend and denied third‑party representation requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. is contractually liable to distribute the $1,000 per‑person Cobell payment | Godfrey: Government is obligated to pay the $1,000 (invoking treaty "Bad Men" clause) | U.S.: Settlement expressly disclaims any Government role or liability for distribution; GCG handled distributions | Held: No contractual duty by the Government to distribute; dismissal on that ground |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute that Godfrey received the $1,000 | Godfrey: He did not receive $1,000; Government evidence may be fabricated | U.S.: GCG mailed a $1,000 check Dec 31, 2012, cashed Jan 8, 2013; Godfrey previously admitted receipt | Held: No genuine dispute; record shows Godfrey was paid; summary judgment for Government |
| Whether amendment to add GCG and employees as defendants is permissible | Godfrey: Wants to add GCG, employees, heir claims, and pursue class action | U.S.: Claims against private parties are beyond Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction; amendment futile; pro se cannot represent a class | Held: Amendment denied as futile (court lacks jurisdiction over private parties; class action and nonattorney rep barred) |
| Whether a nonlawyer third‑party may represent Godfrey in court | Godfrey: Requests Victor Fourstar as third‑party representative | U.S.: Fourstar is not a licensed attorney nor immediate family; RCFC prohibits | Held: Denied under RCFC 83.1(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and materiality)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (resolving doubts for nonmovant and assessing evidentiary persuasiveness)
- Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd., 731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (mere denials or conclusory statements insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Foley v. United States, 11 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (contract interpretation begins with plain language)
- Teg‑Paradigm Envtl., Inc. v. United States, 465 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (courts may not use extrinsic evidence to interpret unambiguous contract language)
- San Carlos Irr. & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (elements to recover for breach of contract)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over suits against private parties)
- Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro S.A. de C.V., 464 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (party seeking leave to amend must proffer facts showing the amended claim could survive a dispositive pretrial motion)