Court of Federal Claims cases which have reached a similar conclusion, that Tucker Act jurisdiction may be exercised in a suit alleging breach of a Title VII settlement agreement.”). Here, Count III of the plaintiffs Complaint, as the defendant notes, “sounds in contract” and is a straightforward breach of contract claim. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 13, at 9. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim lies outside the jurisdiction afforded to this Court pursuant to the Little Tucker Act because the plaintiff does not limit the damages she seeks at or below the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold. See Greenhill, 482 F.3d at 573 (“If [plaintiff] explicitly or in essence seeks money damages in excess of $10,000, jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Court of Federal Claims.”); Brown, 389 F.3d at 1297 (<HOLDING>); Kidwell v. Dep’t of the Army, Bd. for
recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that the plaintiff should have brought her lawsuit in the court of federal claims because she advanced a contract claim against the united states in excess of 10000 holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act holding that full payment of the assessment is also required for tax refund suits brought in the united states court of federal claims holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute