Beberman v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 138
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Julie A. Beberman, pro se, filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on February 6, 2017; the court dismissed it on April 4, 2017 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500.
- In dismissing, the court compared Beberman’s complaint to a fourth amended complaint she had proposed in a separate action in the District Court for the Virgin Islands and concluded the cases involved the same operative facts.
- Beberman moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59(e), arguing the court relied on the wrong district-court pleading; the operative pleading before the district court at the relevant time was the first amended complaint, not the proposed fourth amended complaint.
- The court reviewed the dockets and conferred with the district court and found Beberman was correct: the first amended complaint, which contained different claims, was the operative pleading the court should have compared to the Claims Court complaint.
- Because the first amended complaint lacked the retaliation/separation-orders allegations the court had relied on, the earlier dismissal was based on a mistake of fact and not harmless. The court granted reconsideration, vacated the April 7, 2017 judgment, and reopened the case, giving the government a new deadline to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 by comparing the Claims Court complaint to the wrong district-court pleading | Beberman: the court compared to the proposed fourth amended complaint; the operative district-court pleading was the first amended complaint, which does not overlap on key allegations | Gov: the court’s dismissal was correct or harmless because other earlier-filed suits (e.g., in D.C.) divest jurisdiction under § 1500 | The court found a clear factual mistake (wrong district-court pleading compared), granted reconsideration, vacated judgment, and reopened the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 661 (discussing extraordinary circumstances for RCFC 59(e))
- Del. Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374 (list of grounds for altering/amending judgment)
- Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 330 (movant must show manifest error of law or mistake of fact for reconsideration)
- System Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 182 (same standard cited for legal error/mistake of fact)