Case: 22-1470 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1470
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01261-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Following the filing of Michael A. Bruzzone’s combined
opening brief and appendix, the United States moves to
summarily affirm the United States Court of Federal
Claims’ judgment dismissing Mr. Bruzzone’s complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Bruzzone opposes.
Mr. Bruzzone filed a complaint with the Court of Fed-
eral Claims seeking $68,750,000 based on the False Claims
Case: 22-1470 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2022
2 BRUZZONE v. US
Act,
31 U.S.C. § 3729, and related, alleged contracts with
the United States. Op. Br. at 46; Mot. at 4–5. The claims
center around a series of suits Mr. Bruzzone has brought
against various defendants in various district courts based
on alleged misconduct. See Appx52 nn.1–2 (collecting
cases). The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the com-
plaint, and Mr. Bruzzone appealed. We have jurisdiction
under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
We agree with the government that summary disposi-
tion is appropriate here because there is no “substantial
question regarding the outcome” of Mr. Bruzzone’s appeal.
Joshua v. United States,
17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citation omitted).
First, the Court of Federal Claims properly determined
that Mr. Bruzzone could not bring his False Claims Act
claim in that court. Such “qui tam suits may only be heard
in the district courts,” LeBlanc v. United States,
50 F.3d
1025, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1995). And where, as here, a litigant
has already unsuccessfully pursued such a claim in district
court, we have held that the purported qui tam plaintiff
“has no right to recover” under the Tucker Act.
Id. at 1030;
see Stinson, Lyons & Bustamante, P.A. v. United States,
79
F.3d 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 1 Thus, there is no
1 Mr. Bruzzone notes that he previously appealed
the district court’s decision to this court. But, contrary to
Mr. Bruzzone’s arguments, Op. Br. at 25, 47, we trans-
ferred the case to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit without addressing whether Mr. Bruz-
zone was, in fact, a relator, Appeal No. 2014-1608, ECF No.
28 (Oct. 7, 2014) (Mot. Ex. C at 62–63). Although the cap-
tion listed “Michael A. Bruzzone, Relator Original Source”
as the plaintiff-appellant, that was not a finding by this
court but merely a ministerial recitation of how the parties
were listed in the district court’s docket. The Ninth Circuit
Case: 22-1470 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 08/08/2022
BRUZZONE v. US 3
substantial question that the Court of Federal Claims
properly dismissed these claims.
Second, there is also no substantial question that Mr.
Bruzzone’s breach of contract claims were properly dis-
missed. The qui tam actions themselves do not give rise to
any contractual obligations because, at most, they arise
only from an imputed promise to perform a legal duty. The
Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over any such
implied-in-law contract, even if it were to exist in this case.
Hercules Inc. v. United States,
516 U.S. 417, 423–24 (1996).
Finally, we see no basis for disturbing the dismissal of
the complaint based on communications related to Mr.
Bruzzone’s prior qui tam actions. In particular, Mr. Bruz-
zone relies on: (1) an unsolicited, generic letter from the
Department of Justice that noted its decision not to inter-
vene in his original qui tam action and Mr. Bruzzone would
likely not be able to pursue his qui tam action without re-
taining his own attorney, Appx67–69; (2) an email from a
Department of Justice attorney noting that “[i]f you retain
an attorney for your case(s), please have him or her contact
me,” Appx71; and (3) a letter to the office of a U.S. Senator
noting that “Mr. Bruzzone may obtain his own attorney
and proceed,” Appx72. The Court of Federal Claims was
clearly correct that there is no non-frivolous explanation as
to how any of these communications could possibly consti-
tute a contract with the United States. Each notes that Mr.
Bruzzone could have retained his own attorney to pursue
his qui tam claims in district court (he apparently did not)
but none suggest a “meeting of minds” as to any agreement
where the United States would provide him an attorney or
perform any other action that Mr. Bruzzone has alleged,
ultimately dismissed the appeal, which Mr. Bruzzone ap-
pears not to have contested. Appeal No. 14-17027, ECF
No. 5.
Case: 22-1470 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 08/08/2022
4 BRUZZONE v. US
Hercules,
516 U.S. at 423–24 (citation omitted). 2 And we
do not see how Mr. Bruzzone’s other alleged communica-
tions with government officials and agencies, or any of his
other arguments, change the result in this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Mr. Bruzzone’s combined opening brief and appen-
dix (ECF No. 12) is accepted for filing.
(2) The motion is granted. The Court of Federal
Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
July 8, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
2 The Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal relied on
our precedent that has held that it lacks jurisdiction over
contract claims that are based on “wholly insubstantial and
frivolous” allegations. Lewis v. United States,
70 F.3d 597,
602 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting Bell v. Hood,
327 U.S. 678,
682–83 (1946)). Even if it would have been more appropri-
ate for the court to instead dismiss for failure to state a
claim for relief, see Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar,
660
F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2011), we could still affirm with-
out requiring a formal modification of the judgment. See
Lewis,
70 F.3d at 604; see also Wash. Fed. v. United States,
26 F.4th 1253, 1263 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[W]e may affirm
the Claims Court’s dismissal on any grounds supported by
the record.”).
