This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential orders and two nonprecedential opinions. One of the precedential orders comes in a government contract case appealed from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, and the other comes in a takings case appealed from the court of Federal Claims. One of the nonprecedential orders transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of Virginia, and the other transfers a petition to review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the Eastern District of California. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Hamp’s Construction LLC v. Secretary of the Army (Precedential)
Hamp’s Construction LLC (“Hamp’s Construction”) appeals a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denying Hamp’s Construction’s Type I differing site condition claim. Hamp’s Construction LLC, ASBCA No. 62257, 2024 WL 669328 (Feb. 2, 2024) (“Decision”) (App’x 1–33). For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
Loveridge v. United States (Precedential)
This is not your typical rails-to-trails case. After concluding there was in fact a Fifth Amendment taking stemming from a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (“NITU”) concerning a railroad corridor located in Oregon, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held a valuation trial and determined that Shirley Laviolette, Old Mill Investment LLC, and Camp Double J, LLC had failed to meet their burden to prove just compensation. Loveridge v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 379 (2024) (“Loveridge VII”). Particularly unusual in this case is that, before and after the NITU issued (or even if the NITU had never issued), an intrastate scenic railroad service remained operational on that same railroad corridor. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Steele v. Department of State (Nonprecedential Order)
The Department of State (“DOS”) moves to dismiss Terry L. Steele’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, noting he has a pending petition for review with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Mr. Steele did not respond to the motion but separately moves to “suspend” the case, ECF No. 9 at 1. We instead transfer this case.
Bennett v. Department of the Interior (Nonprecedential Order)
Scott Bennett filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging the agency’s decision to remove him from federal service. The Board affirmed the agency’s decision and found that Mr. Bennett failed to prove his claim of disability discrimination. Mr. Bennett petitions for review, and we directed the parties to show cause because he indicated he continues to pursue that discrimination claim. In response to the court’s show cause order, the agency urges dismissal. Mr. Bennett has not responded.