In a breach of contract action against the United States, Court of Federal Claims’ final judgment of dismissal is affirmed where: 1) the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims for all years prior to 2001 as the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; 2) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s breach of express contract claim as plaintiff cannot establish that its express United States government obligations (USGO) contract included a duty exempting the USGOs from taxation by the Guam Territorial Income Tax and thus the government did not breach the USGO contract by imposing the tax; 3) the court properly dismissed the breach of implied-in-fact contract claim as plaintiff cannot prove the existence of an implied-in-fact contract entitling it to the requested relief; 4) the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s reformation claim; and 5) since all of plaintiff’s claims are dismissed, it is impossible for plaintiff to prevail on its request for declaratory relief.
Read Bank of Guam v. US, No. 08-5078
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States Court of Federal ClaimsDecided August 12, 2009
JudgesBefore LOURIE, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.Opinion by SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
CounselFor Plaintiff: Kurt W. Melchior, Nossaman LLP, San Francisco, California.
For Defendant: Brian A. Mizoguchi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
