must be converted into one for summary judgment under RCFC 56(c).”) (internal citations omitted).) The Government does not dispute that RCFC 12(d) requires the court to consider this issue on summary judgment. Gov’t Reply at 3. And, Plaintiff presented a 166-page Appendix with its January 12, 2015 Response. Gov’t Reply at 3. For these reasons, the court will adjudicate the Government’s November 24, 2014 Motion To Dismiss regarding Count III as a Motion For Summary Judgment. 2. The Merits. a. The Government’s Argument. The Government posits three reasons why Count III should be dismissed. First, Plaintiff failed to notify the Government of the alleged assignment until it was too late. Gov’t Mot. 18-19 (citing United Cal. Discount Corp. v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 504, 507-08 (1990) (<HOLDING>)). Therefore, Plaintiff forfeited any right to
holding that failure to comply with formal notice requirements prior to the termination of a contract comes too late to perfect an assignment on behalf of the assignee holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that late state income tax returns fail to comply with applicable filing requirements