motion, both of which were granted by order entered on May 20, 2009. After a second motion for enlargement of time, plaintiffs opposition and cross-motion were filed on August 7, 2009, and briefing concluded on October 5, 2009. Oral argument was held on October 23, 2009. The court recognizes Mr. Stouck for undertaking to represent Mr. Wood in presenting plaintiffs case. DISCUSSION 1. Standard of review for a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, see Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed.Cir.1988), and must construe such facts in the light most favorable to the pleader, see Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, when defendant disputes the
holding that courts must when reviewing motions for summary judgment evaluate disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that triers of fact may draw only reasonable inferences