Rodriguez, Paul Anthony

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• identifying that “Court of Federal Claims R[CFC] 15(a) . . . is identical in all material respects to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).”
• concluding, in reviewing a motion to dismiss a takings claim, “that the [plaintiffs’] regulatory-taking claim cannot pass muster under [the Penn Central] standards, even without further factual inquiry”
• dismissing a claim because, based on the allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the claim could not “succeed as a matter of law”
• affirming a judgment of dismissal but concluding that the dismissal should have been for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• describing the complaint as alleging that government personnel “led [a contracting party] to terminate the contract” with plaintiffs
• finding, in takings case, no abuse of discretion where Claims Court did not permit amendment that was never requested of it and was first mentioned on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).