Karla Sue Podlucky, Gregory Joseph Podlucky v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KARLA SUE PODLUCKY, GREGORY JOSEPH
PODLUCKY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1014
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01124-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before L OURIE, MAYER, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing appellants’ case for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have
not responded but have filed their opening brief.
Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

PODLUCKY v. US 2
As noted in our previous decisions involving the appel-
lants,1 Gregory Joseph Podlucky pleaded guilty to certain
crimes and agreed to forfeit “all pieces of gems and jewelry
that were seized as evidence . . . with the exception of cer-
tain personal pieces to be agreed upon by the parties.” Pod-
lucky III, 2022 WL 2951461, at *1 (cleaned up).
Appellants subsequently filed multiple, unsuccessful
cases seeking compensation based on an alleged violation
of that agreement. In their most recent attempt, appel-
lants filed this suit in the Court of Federal Claims, assert-
ing “a breach-of-contract claim against the government,”
alleging “the government agreed to return nearly $5 mil-
lion in jewelry” as “memorialized in Mr. Podlucky’s June
2011 plea agreement,” Dkt. No. 1 at 1 (citation omitted).
The trial court dismissed the case, and this appeal fol-
lowed.
As we have previously explained, the Court of Federal
Claims has no jurisdiction over claims for alleged breach of
this plea agreement, Podlucky I, 2022 WL 1791065, at *2;
the “appropriate forum for Mr. Podlucky’s claims regarding
the alleged breach of his plea agreement was the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsyl-
vania” (which already denied relief), id. (citing United
States v. Podlucky, No. 2:09-cr-278, ECF No. 151 at 10
(W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2021)); and any alleged taking claim
here is time-barred, Podlucky III, 2022 WL 2951461 at *1.
Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate because the
Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
1 See Podlucky v. United States, No. 2022-1319, 2022
WL 2951461 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2022) (“Podlucky III”); Pod-
lucky v. United States, No. 2022-1328, 2022 WL 2951453
(Fed. Cir. July 26, 2022) (“Podlucky II”); Podlucky v. United
States, No. 2021-2226, 2022 WL 1791065 (Fed. Cir. June 2,
2022) (“Podlucky I”).
Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

PODLUCKY v. US 3
“is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial
question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists,”
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The United States’s motion for summary affir-
mance is granted, and the Court of Federal Claims’s judg-
ment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
January 29, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1014 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 01/29/2025

-- 3 of 3 --