This morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a government contract case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. Last Friday and this morning the Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. One grants a motion to transfer a case to the Northern District of Alabama; one dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and one grants an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.

U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. United States (Nonprecedential)

U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. (“Aeroteam”) contracted with the United States Air Force to build ground support trailers. After Aeroteam incurred additional costs building the trailers, it requested compensation from the Air Force. The Air Force denied its request. Aeroteam filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”). The Claims Court entered judgment in favor of the United States. U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01096-MBH (Fed. Cl. 2019), J.A. 3–9. We affirm the court’s judgment for the reasons explained below.

Harris v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential Order)

Tiffany Harris has indicated that she wishes to continue to pursue her discrimination claim, ECF No. 5 at 3, and in response to the court’s order to show cause as to jurisdiction, Ms. Harris requests transfer to the “United States District Court the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.” ECF No. 15 at 1. The Department of Veterans Affairs responds in support of transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

As this court explained in the show cause order, we lack jurisdiction over this matter by operation of 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) but may transfer it to a court where the action could have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The action could not have been brought directly in a court of appeals but could have been brought in district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. See also 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). The Department points out that the Northern District of Alabama is the district court most convenient to where Ms. Harris was employed at the time of the personnel action involved in this case.



Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this matter and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.