Skip to main content

Anham Fzco v. United States

Fed. Cl.September 20, 2019No. 19-55
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Patricia E. Campbell-Smith
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Motion for Preliminary Injunction granted in part and denied in part; Motion for Judgment on Administrative Record granted in part and denied in part; Cross-motions granted in part and denied in part; Final judgment entered in plaintiff's favor

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted plaintiff ANHAM FZCO's motion for preliminary injunction in part, permanently enjoining the Defense Logistics Agency from continuing transition activities and obtaining performance from a competing contractor under the disputed contract.

Excerpt

REPORTED OPINION of the court's sealed opinion issued on 8/29/2019 denying as moot, [148] Motion for TRO filed by ANHAM FZCO denying as moot, [149] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ANHAM FZCO granting in part and denying in part, [153] MOTION for Judgment on the AR filed by ANHAM FZCO granting in part and denying in part, [155] CROSS MOTION filed by USA granting in part and denying in part, [156] CROSS MOTION denied as moot, [163] MOTION to Strike filed by USA and, denying as moot, [164] MOTION to Supplement filed by USA. The United States, by and through the Defense Logistics Agency, its officers, agents, and employees, is hereby PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from continuing with transition activities and from obtaining performance from KGL Food Services, WLL, under Contract Number SPE300-18-D-4032, except to the extent that such activities are required under a bridge contract or other solution designed to ensure the continuous availability of the supplies or services provided for under the contract. On or before 9/18/2019, counsel for the parties shall CONFER and FILE a notice of filing, attaching a proposed redacted version of this opinion, with any material deemed proprietary blacked out, so that a copy of the opinion can then be made available in the public record of this matter. The clerk's office is directed to enter final judgment in plaintiff's favor. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (TQ) Service on parties made.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved a contract dispute between ANHAM FZCO, a contractor, and the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency. ANHAM had been providing services under a government contract, but the agency wanted to transition those services to a different contractor. ANHAM disagreed with this decision and went to court, arguing that the agency was improperly ending their contract and giving the work to someone else. **What the Court Decided** The U.S. Court of Federal Claims sided with ANHAM. The court issued a preliminary injunction, which is a court order that stops certain actions while a case is ongoing. Specifically, the court ordered the Defense Logistics Agency to stop transitioning the work to the competing contractor and prevented them from having that other contractor perform the disputed services. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling demonstrates that contractors have legal rights when they believe government agencies are unfairly terminating their contracts. When companies successfully challenge improper contract cancellations, it can help protect jobs and workplace stability for the employees of those contractors. Workers should know that their employers can fight back through the courts when government agencies make questionable contracting decisions that could affect their employment.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Danziger v. United States
Fed. Cl.May 2026
Plaintiff Win
Diaz
Fed. Cl.Mar 2026

UNREPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff filed his claim for wrongful discharge more than 18 years after April 16, 2007, and as a result his claims are untimely under 28 U.S.C. &167; 2501. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff&039;s claims. The defendant&039;s [17] motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. No costs are awarded

Defendant Win
Michalovic Crawley v. United States
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification

Plaintiff Win
Adams
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6). The United States' Answer is due by 12/28/2020. The parties shall submit a Joint Preliminary Status Report by 1/11/2021. Signed by Judge David A. Tapp. (jm) Service on parties made.

Plaintiff Win
Abrantes
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). On or before 2/12/2021, defendant is directed to FILE an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint and on or before 2/12/2021, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report informing the court of their positions on the consolidation of this case with any other matters before the court. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (mp) Service on parties made. Modified font of text on 12/13/2020 Keywords re: Reported Order on Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss RCFC 12(b)(6) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5550 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) Pub. L. No. 116-1, 133 Stat. 3 (2019).

Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.