once the government has been held liable for breach of contract prior to addressing damages under a contractual theory, while others preserve both claims until final judgment is rendered. Compare Allegre Villa v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 11, 19 (2004) (dismissing takings claims in the housing context on the grounds that plaintiffs were in privity of contract, in contrast to Cienega Gardens [v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2003)], where they were not, so contract claims were viable); and Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 652, 656 n. 8 (2003) (dismissing a takings claim in a [spent nuclear fuel] case after granting summary judgment on a partial-breach-of-eontract claim), with Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 495, 501 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Each of these decisions embraces the
holding that the government was liable for partial breach of contract holding that a partial failure of consideration can support a claim for breach of contract holding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue its takings claim while granting plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment that the government was liable for partial breach of contract holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding that a denial of a motion for partial summary judgment is interlocutory and subject to revision at discretion of the court