Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56. Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. RCFC 56(c);Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Sharp v. United States, 580 F.3d 1234, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Sparks v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 510 F.2d 1277, 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1975). See Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment."). "When the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate."
As long as the new interpretation is consistent with congressional intent, an agency may make a `course correction.'" Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 7 CIT 178, 192-93, 585 F.Supp. 649, 661 (1984) (citations omitted); cf., Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that an agency may change its position if it believes that the previous position was based on a mistaken legal interpretation). As a general principle, of course, an agency is required to provide an adequate explanation for departing from prior practice.
Where, as here, all of the parties' factual assertions are taken as true, summary judgment on the legal issue is appropriate. See, e.g.,Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment."); Costain Coal, Inc. v. United States, 126 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In evaluating the meaning of the original CAS 413.50(c)(12), the Federal Circuit has held that the court must be guided by the CASB's intent in promulgating the standard.
Cases such as the one presented here, which involve competing interpretations of a statute, are particularly well-suited for adjudication by summary judgment. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 376, 386 (2007). B. Certification Requirement
Where, as here, all of the parties' factual assertions are taken as true, summary judgment on the legal issue is appropriate. See, e.g., Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment.");Costain Coal, Inc. v. United States, 126 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Therefore, the only question for this Court to consider is whether the Sunday premium pay differential set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 5546(a) should be available to part-time as well as to full-time Federal employees. This is a question of law that may properly be decided on a motion for summary judgment. See Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Curry v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 593, 597 (2005). II. History of the Sunday Premium Pay Regulation
The issues of liability in this case turn solely on questions of the interpretation of statutes (and regulations), which are questions of law that may be decided on a motion for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). B. Hybrids
Issues of statutory interpretation are matters of law that may be decided on motions for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The contracting officer's justification for withholding full reimbursement of plaintiff's costs of defense is a FAR provision that was issued pursuant to the Major Fraud Act of 1988, 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. § 256; 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47(b).
Under the first prong of this test, the court must evaluate whether the claimant has a "property interest" that was affected by the government action. Maritrans, 342 F.3d at 1351; Santa Fe Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Store Safe Redlands Assocs. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 726, 734 (1996). Frequently, this requires the court to sort among various, sometimes overlapping, claimed interests, some of which may be in the nature of property compensable under the Fifth Amendment and others of which not.