Rothe Dev., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Def., No. 11–50101.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM:
• Citation: 666 F.3d 336
• Parties: ROTHE DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; United States Department of Air Force, Defendants–Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 11–50101.
• Decision Date: 29 December 2011

666 F.3d 336

ROTHE DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; United States Department of Air Force, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–50101.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 29, 2011.

[666 F.3d 337]

David Franklin Barton (argued), Gardner Law Firm, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Kirk Thomas Manhardt, Asst. Dir. (argued), Christopher Andrew Bowen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Commercial Lit. Branch, Washington, DC, Mitchell Lester Weidenbach, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Rothe Development, Inc. (“Rothe”) appeals the district court's dismissal of its complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rothe sued the United States Department of Defense and the United States Air Force (collectively “DoD”) for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the DoD violated various in-sourcing procedures adopted pursuant to federal law. The district court dismissed, concluding exclusive jurisdiction lay in the Court of Federal Claims. We AFFIRM.

Rothe contracted with the DoD to provide information technology services at the Minneapolis–St. Paul Air Reserve Station in Minnesota in 1987. In March 2010, the DoD informed Rothe it intended to “in-source” Rothe's technology services by directly hiring federal employees in lieu of continuing to contract for information technology services. The DoD scheduled its in-sourcing for September 2010, at the expiration of Rothe's contract. After unsuccessful

[666 F.3d 338]

attempts to dissuade the DoD of its in-sourcing decision, Rothe sued under Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), alleging the DoD's in-sourcing decision violated its procurement procedures promulgated under 10 U.S.C. § 2463. The district court dismissed Rothe's suit as a bid protest under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), over which the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction.

We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan, 628 F.3d 705, 708 (5th Cir.2010). We similarly review a district court's interpretation of a statute de novo. Id.

“A federal court has no subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the United States unless the government waives its sovereign immunity and consents to suit.” Danos v. Jones, 652 F.3d 577, 582 (5th Cir.2011). The APA waives sovereign immunity to the extent a party “adversely affected ... by agency action” seeks “relief other than money damages.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA limits this waiver, however, only to situations where no “other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief that is sought.” Id. The Tucker Act provides in relevant part:

[T]he United States Court of Federal Claims and the district courts ... shall have jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or...