Mata v. United States
118 Fed. Cl. 92
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- Mata, a former Army engineer, sued the United States for breach of a Title VII settlement agreement (NSA) that required the Army to attempt a lateral reassignment (NSA ¶ 3b).
- District court transferred the case to the Court of Federal Claims in 2009; Mata later filed breach-of-contract claims there.
- The Court granted summary judgment for the government on breaches of NSA ¶¶ 3a and 3c in February 2014, leaving only the ¶ 3b transfer/reassignment claim.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction, arguing ¶ 3b is not money-mandating because it contemplates purely non‑monetary relief (a transfer).
- Plaintiff did not meaningfully respond to the jurisdictional briefing; the Court found plaintiff failed to show the agreement could be fairly interpreted as contemplating money damages for ¶ 3b.
- The Court concluded it lacks jurisdiction over the remaining claim and, in the interest of justice, transferred the case back to the Western District of Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over breach of NSA ¶ 3b | Mata argues the NSA can be fairly interpreted to contemplate money damages (court previously found jurisdiction based on the whole NSA) | United States argues ¶ 3b contemplates purely non‑monetary relief (a lateral transfer) and is therefore not money‑mandating | Held: No jurisdiction — ¶ 3b is non‑money‑mandating and plaintiff failed to meet burden to show otherwise |
| Whether the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine prevents revisiting prior jurisdictional finding | Mata contends prior decision finding jurisdiction should control | Government notes prior decision relied on the entire NSA; ¶¶ 3a and 3c (which supported money nexus) were dismissed, leaving only non‑monetary ¶ 3b | Held: Law‑of‑the‑case does not bar reconsideration because the factual/legal posture changed (only ¶ 3b remains) |
| Whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate if Court lacks jurisdiction | Mata implicitly prefers adjudication in this court | Government moved to dismiss; Court must consider 28 U.S.C. § 1631 transfer if in interest of justice | Held: Transfer to the Western District of Texas is in the interest of justice; case transferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (settlement terms requiring non‑monetary actions may not be money‑mandating; court must determine if agreement could fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages)
- Cunningham v. United States, 748 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reiterating Holmes: plaintiff must demonstrate settlement could fairly be interpreted to contemplate money damages; purely non‑monetary relief insufficient)
- Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussing law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and its limits)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity but does not create substantive rights)
- Testan v. United States, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act does not confer substantive rights; an independent source of law is required for money damages)