See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 7,15-21. Claims for breach of contract typically fall within the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Bussie v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 89, 97 (2011), aff'd, 443 Fed.Appx. 542 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and there is generally a “presumption in the civil context that a damages remedy will be available upon the breach of an agreement,” Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001), Nonetheless, “contracts that are entirely concerned with the conduct of parties in a criminal case, without a clear, unmistakable statement triggering monetary liability, do not invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction.” Higbie v. United States, 778 F.3d 990, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); see also Sanders, 252 F.3d at 1334-35 (<HOLDING>) (citing Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264,
recognizing that a damages remedy is not ordinarily available where the alleged agreement is entirely concerned with the conduct of the parties in a criminal case holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that a thwarted remedy is not available