under the old common law test because though there were many bills of lading, there was no single contract govern ing the shipments tendered by DOD.” Ptf.’s Reply at 5 (citing Fikse, 23 Cl.Ct. at 203). This court adopts the reasoning expressed by Judge Williams in Central Transport and holds that Section 13706 does not “dispense with the necessity of establishing privity of contract with the Government in order to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.” 63 Fed.Cl. at 340 n. 10 (citing Fikse, 23 Cl.Ct. at 204; In re Roll Form Prods., 662 F.2d at 154 (“The ICA, in our view, was not intended to ‘fashion a sword’ to insure collection by carriers of freight charges.” (internal brackets omitted)); S & B Transp., Inc. v. Allou Distribs., Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 388, 391-92 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>)). While the plaintiff attempts to distinguish
holding that section 13706 does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over disputes involving independent brokerage contracts between broker and shipper holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction recognizing that generally disputes between purchasers of a debtors assets and third parties are not within the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction but recognizing that disputes concerning the sale order itself may be sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services holding that section 10 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction and listing cases from dc second sixth seventh ninth and eleventh circuits holding same