The Government responds to most of Mr. Filipczyk’s claims by arguing that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to decide the negotiability of terms under a CBA, whether a CBA violates Department of Defense housing guidelines, or whether the CBA violates a statutory prohibition against compelling federal employees to rent government quarters. These statutes are not money-mandating, and the Tucker Act itself does not confer any substantive right to relief. The Government concludes that the Court of Federal Claims can only entertain claims that independently arise from a money-mandating statute. Mr. Filipczyk responds that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the money-mandating Travel Expense Act, and thus has jurisdiction 2 Fed.Cl. 673, 677-78 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction
holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident