party, and may not maintain an action for breach of contract in this court.”).) Count III “does not allege an improper transfer of funds to a third party”; thus, it is “actually an impermissible breach of contract claim[.]” Gov’t Mot. at 22. b. Plaintiffs Response. Plaintiff responds that the Government’s assignment analysis is wrong, because BPA’s offset did not comply with the DCIA. PI. Resp. at 11-13. As such, “the administrative offset was pot effective and the Interconnection Deposits were still in existence when the [G]ovemment was notified of the assignment.” Pl. Resp. at 13. The Government also failed to meet its common law obligation to establish entitlement to contract damages. Pl. Resp. at 13-14 (citing Rumley v. United States, 152 Ct.Cl. 166, 171-72, 285 F.2d 773 (1961) (<HOLDING>)). Here, “CEP assigned the Interconnection
holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the government must satisfy its burden of proving contract damages holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury