G. TIDWELL, District Judge
The above-styled matter is presently before the court on this court's March 8, 2006 order [docket no. 38].
Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 13, 2004, seeking to recover for breach of an agreement under which plaintiff paid defendant's undergraduate tuition and expenses in exchange for defendant's service in the Defense Intelligence Agency ("DIA") upon graduation. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to perform his service obligation, and accordingly seeks to recover the $40,191.07 it paid for defendant's education, plus interest accruing from March 12, 2004. On December 27, 2004, defendant filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of $15,000 he had paid toward his debt under the contract. On September 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 6, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to defendant's response to the summary judgment motion.
The parties' briefs on the motion for summary judgment contain arguments concerning what law governs the disposition of the contract. Plaintiff contends that the Civil Service Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978) ("CSRA") precludes any claim or defense based on state law that is raised by defendant because the claims at issue are based on personnel decisions by the federal government. Defendant contends that state law contract principles apply and free him from contractual obligations due to plaintiff's rescission, anticipatory breach, and failure to provide consideration. He further asserts that the contract was an adhesion contract. On March 8, 2006, this court issued an order finding that the positions of the parties required further clarification in order to enable it to evaluate the agreement. Accordingly, the court directed the parties to file briefs "clarifying which statutory authority covers plaintiff and defendant's obligations pursuant to the indebtedness incurred to plaintiff by defendant, including but not limited to the statutory authority for the creation of the actual indebtedness." Plaintiff filed its supplemental brief on March 21, 2006. Defendant filed its supplemental brief on March 22, 2006.
After reviewing the parties' supplemental briefs, the court finds that the parties still fail to sufficiently clarify whether state law principles or other law governs this court's determination of whether the contract is enforceable based on the theories asserted by defendant. Accordingly, and for all the aforementioned reasons, the court finds that the parties have not complied with the court's March 8, 2006 order. The parties are hereby DIRECTED to file additional legal arguments on the questions specified in the March 8, 2006 order within ten (10) days of the date of this order.
Summary
The parties are hereby DIRECTED to file additional legal arguments on the questions specified in the March 8, 2006 order within ten (10) days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.