Moals v. McDonald et al

Filing 18

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(Sonnenberg, Elizabeth)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
JOSEPH MOALS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT MCDONALD, the Secretary of )
Veterans Affairs,
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,)
VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATOR,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-10810-WGY

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.

December 17, 2015

At a motion hearing held on November 13, 2015, this Court
allowed pro-se Plaintiff Joseph Moals (“Moals”) 30 days to
retain counsel.

Elec. Clerk’s Notes, Nov. 13, 2015, ECF No. 17.

Since Moals eschewed this opportunity, this Court rules on the
papers.
In this case, Moals alleges the Department of Veterans
Affairs (the “VA”) breached a settlement agreement (the
“Agreement”) between the VA and Moals, a VA employee, by
assigning him “additional duties [that were] not indicated in
the settlement agreement.”

Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.

Moals seeks

$250,000 in damages for breach of contract against Secretary of
Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald (“McDonald”), the VA, and the

Veterans Health Administrator.

Id.

McDonald, through the

United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, timely
moved to dismiss Moals’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Def.’s Mot.

Dismiss, ECF No. 14.
This Court does not have jurisdiction over Moals’s claim.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, “[c]laims against the
United States exceeding $10,000 (‘Big’ Tucker Act claims),
founded upon . . . contract, are in the jurisdiction of the
Court of Federal Claims.”
(1st Cir. 1994).

Charles v. Rice, 28 F.3d 1312, 1321

Moals alleges a breach of contract claim

against a federal agency for $250,000, Compl. ¶ 5, and
accordingly his claim must be brought before the Court of
Federal Claims.
In addition to lack of jurisdiction, Moals fails to state a
claim for relief.

Even “draw[ing] all reasonable inferences in

favor of [Moals,]” Gargano v. Liberty Int’l Underwriters, Inc.,
572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 2009), the facts in his complaint are
insufficient to plead a breach of contract claim.

In

particular, the Agreement does not contain any provisions
indicating that the VA was prohibited from assigning him
“additional duties.”
Agreement, ECF No. 7.

See Resp. Order Show Cause, Settlement
As Moals has not presented an adequate
[2]

factual basis for breach of contract, his complaint fails to
state a plausible claim.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS McDonald’s
motion to dismiss the complaint, ECF No. 14. 1
SO ORDERED.

_/s/ William G. Young__
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court’s two grounds for dismissal apply to Moals’s
claim against all of the defendants and his complaint is
dismissed in its entirety.
[3]