NAFI Contractor Goes Straight to Court When CO Fails to Issue Final Decision
Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 01.24.12
In SUFI Network Servs., Inc, v. U.S. (Jan.17, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Slattery v. U.S., 635 F.2d 1298, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), that the court has Tucker Act jurisdiction over all NAFI disputes. The court also found, in this non-CDA matter, that the CO had materially breached the contract’s Disputes clause by failing to provide a final decision on SUFI’s claim within a reasonable time, excusing SUFI from going to the board first, as the clause specified.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
