Schirripa v. United States
16-1073
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey N. Schirripa (pro se) sued the United States asserting a bid protest, breach of contract, and takings claims, and sought to enjoin enforcement of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a) as to cannabinoids.
- On June 9, 2017, the Court dismissed the case under RCFC 12(b)(1) and (6): Schirripa lacked standing for the bid protest, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the breach of contract claim, and the takings claim was not plausibly pleaded.
- On July 5, 2017, Schirripa moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59(a)(1)(C), arguing the June 9 decision contained factual errors and overlooked material evidence (including assertions about U.S. Patent No. 6,630,507 and a filing of a sample with the Court).
- Schirripa contended denial of reconsideration would cause manifest injustice and sought either reconsideration or a hearing; he also asserted he filed a prior motion for judicial notice.
- The government opposed; the Court evaluated whether Schirripa showed an intervening change in law, newly available evidence, or necessity to prevent manifest injustice.
- The Court found Schirripa did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or the required grounds for relief under RCFC 59 and denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted under RCFC 59(a)(1)(C) | Schirripa said the Court misstated facts and overlooked evidence (patent issuance, sample deposit, motion for judicial notice) and denial would cause manifest injustice | The government argued no basis for reconsideration; prior dismissal was correct | Denied — Schirripa failed to show intervening law, newly available evidence, or manifest injustice; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Shapiro v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 105 Fed. Cl. 353 (discussing standards for reconsideration and manifest error)
- Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 298 (reconsideration requires showing of manifest error of law or mistake of fact)
- Johnson v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 558 (reconsideration standards and requirement to show intervening change, new evidence, or need to prevent manifest injustice)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (relief under RCFC 59(a) requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Yuba Nat. Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (district court discretion in granting reconsideration)