of whether to transfer a case is left to the discretion of the transferor court, based upon the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case. Bienville v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 440, 445 (1988). See also Faulkner v. United States, 43 Fed.Cl. 54, 56 (1999). In deciding to dismiss plaintiffs case without prejudice, the District Court of Washington stated that “[pjlaintiffs purported tort claims implicate the manner in which government officials executed their duties with respect to performance of the contract.” Def.’s App. at 76. Although this court decides that plaintiffs claim regarding defendant’s obligation to deliver irrigation water cannot be based on a contract, the court is not convinced that plaintiff is without remedy in this matter. Cf. Faulkner, 43 Fed.Cl. at 56 (<HOLDING>). Because parts of plaintiffs claim may sound
holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that retransfer to district court would be futile where district court determined it was without jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claim holding that the fourth circuit had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a south carolina district courts order denying a motion to compel arbitration even though the district court also transferred the case to a georgia district court holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority