Podlucky v. United States, 21-1377

Plaintiff alleged the United States failed to return personal property seized under search warrants in Nov. 2006 and Jan. 2007 and sought return or, if unavailable, monetary recovery of $4,809,894.
On June 25, 2021 the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, explaining the court cannot order specific performance (equitable relief) outside the bid-protest context.
The court noted but did not rule on any statute-of-limitations issue.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59(a), arguing (1) the statute of limitations was tolled, and (2) he would abandon specific performance and amend his claim to seek monetary damages instead.
The court reviewed the standards for reconsideration (intervening law, newly discovered evidence, clear error, or to prevent manifest injustice) and the requirement of extraordinary circumstances to grant relief.
The court denied reconsideration: tolling was irrelevant because the dismissal rested on lack of jurisdiction over specific performance, and using reconsideration to amend a dismissed complaint was improper and did not meet the extraordinary-circumstances standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to order return/specific performance	CFC can order return of seized property or monetary equivalent	CFC lacks authority to order equitable relief such as specific performance	Dismissal affirmed: CFC lacks jurisdiction to grant specific performance
Reconsideration to toll SOL and convert claim to monetary damages	SOL tolled; plaintiff abandons specific performance and seeks $4,809,894 monetary relief	Tolling irrelevant to jurisdictional dismissal; motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to amend a dismissed complaint	Reconsideration denied: tolling argument immaterial; amendment via reconsideration inappropriate and not justified by RCFC 59(a) standards

Smalls v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 300 (2009) (CFC cannot order equitable relief such as specific performance outside bid-protest context)
Blackwell v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 746 (1991) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over claims for specific performance)
Biery v. United States, 818 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reconsideration granted only for intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error/manifest injustice)
Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (motions for reconsideration require extraordinary circumstances)
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (reconsideration not for relitigating matters or raising arguments that could have been made earlier)