![]() We held oral argument on both parties’ motions on September 12 and 14, 2018. Northrop’s motion was fully briefed on June 29, 2018, and defendant’s motion was fully briefed on July 20, 2018. The court allowed the parties to submit briefing far in excess of the rule limits. ![]() Defendant also moves for partial summary judgment on Northrop’s count five, summary judgment on count seven, and partial summary judgment on elements of the claims imbedded in counts three through five. The Postal Service moves to dismiss Northrop’s count one for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment on the majority of the counts in the Postal Service’s counterclaim. Northrop’s motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the Postal Service’s counterclaim counts one and four for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pending are the parties’ motions to dismiss and motions for partial summary judgment. The Postal Service has counter-claimed, asserting that Northrop breached its own contractual obligations. §§ 7101-7109 (2012) (“CDA”), claiming that the Postal Service breached the contract in a number of ways. The contract was eventually performed, but Northrop has filed suit pursuant to Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. processing machines known as the Flats Sequencing System machine (“FSS machine”) for a fixed price of approximately $874 million. The parties agree that no redactions are necessary and thus this opinion is reissued without redactions. United States Postal Service (“the Postal Service”) entered into a contract with Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop”) pursuant to which Northrop would produce and deliver a number of a mail1 This opinion was originally issued under seal. ![]() Kiely, United States Postal Service, Law Department, of counsel. Cameron Cohick, Senior Trial Counsel, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, with whom were Barbara E. Chierichella, Washington, DC, with whom were Anne B. §§ 7101-7109 (2012) motions to dismiss variance between claim and complaint motions for summary judgment contract interpretation. THE UNITED STATES, Contracts Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. ![]() ![]() In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |