Larry Tallacus v. Kathleen Sebelius

MEMORANDUM

Larry D. Tallacus appeals from a judgment entered against him after a jury trial and an order denying his motion for a new trial. We affirm.

1.Tallacus had the burden of demonstrating that the district court had jurisdiction over his breach of contract claim. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). He did not do so.

Little Tucker Act jurisdiction in a federal district court requires a claim against the Government of contract-based damages not exceeding $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (a)(2). The complaint did not allege that Tallacus had incurred any legally cognizable damages for the agency’s alleged breach of a settlement agreement. Nor did Tallacus seek to amend his complaint to allege damages. To the degree the complaint can be read as alleging damages to be incurred in the future, and without deciding whether such an allegation is sufficient, the complaint does not state that any such damages would be for $10,000 or less, or waive any damages over $10,000. See United States v. Park Place Assocs., 563 F.3d 907, 928 (9th Cir.2009).

2. Substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the Merit…