Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 15, 2025

Liao v. USPS Richmond VA

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05729
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
ContractCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Xi Liao v. USPS Richmond VA, Judge Swain transferred the contract action to the Court of Federal Claims because this court lacked jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Xi Liao and QDGO Express, whose action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Federal Claims; the court did not decide the merits of their payment claim against USPS.

What happened

In Xi Liao; QDGO Express v. USPS Richmond VA, Xi Liao and QDGO Express sought unspecified relief, apparently for the United States Postal Service’s alleged failure to pay for transporting goods.

The court understood the case as a contract dispute involving the federal government. It explained that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive authority over contract claims against the Postal Service under the Contract Disputes Act.

Judge Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the Court of Federal Claims, rather than deciding whether the plaintiffs were entitled to payment. The court closed the case in the Southern District of New York, did not issue a summons, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Liao v. USPS Richmond VA · No. 1:25-cv-05729
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 15, 2025

Background

Xi Liao and QDGO Express brought an action without a lawyer seeking unspecified relief from “USPS Richmond VA,” which the court understood to mean the United States Postal Service (USPS). They alleged that on September 4, 2022, they transported goods from a USPS facility in Sandston, Virginia, to Chicopee, Massachusetts, but USPS failed to pay for the services. They also alleged that the goods were not damaged, arrived on time, and were received with a delivery certificate recognized by the post office.

The complaint was signed by Liao and QDGO Express. The court noted that the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was signed only by Liao, so it appeared that Liao was attempting to assert claims without a lawyer on behalf of QDGO Express.

Jurisdiction and Transfer

The court treated the action as a contract claim against the federal government. It explained that federal district courts and the United States Court of Federal Claims can sometimes hear contract claims against the United States, but the Contract Disputes Act gives the Court of Federal Claims exclusive authority over contract claims against USPS.

The court also described the Contract Disputes Act’s process. A claimant generally must first submit a written claim to a contracting officer. After the officer issues a decision, the contractor may appeal to the relevant contract appeals board or bring an action directly in the Court of Federal Claims. The court stated that the requirement to first submit the claim is a procedural requirement for processing the claim, rather than a limit on the Court of Federal Claims’ authority to hear it.

Because the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive authority over the contract claims alleged in this case, the Southern District of New York concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to decide the claims. Instead of dismissing the action, the court transferred it under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because it found that transfer was in the interest of justice.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States Court of Federal Claims. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could continue without prepaying filing fees. The Southern District of New York did not issue a summons and closed the action in that court.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were owed payment or whether their contract allegations were valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.