674 F.3d 904
8th Cir.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Bernard owned 45.5 acres held in trust on the Sisseton Wahpeton Reservation; business venture with Grady Renville.
  • BIA realty officer advised gift deed to Bernard and Renville as joint tenants with right of survivorship; Bernard waived appraisal.
  • Gift deed approved by BIA in May 2004; Bernard later alleges misrepresentation and lack of understanding of joint tenancy.
  • Development plan failed; Renville allegedly spent substantial sums; Bernards sought to set aside the deed and claimed breach of fiduciary duty.
  • IBIA affirmed the decision not to rescind; Bernards sued in district court asserting APA and Tucker Act claims for breach of trust.
  • During proceedings, the Bernards amended to drop money damages; settled with Renville; Interior not a party to settlement.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether §1631 transfer was appropriate Bernards abandoned money damages; transfer should move remaining APA claim to CFC. No pending money damages claim at judgment; transfer not permitted; §1500 blocks transfer. Transfer not permitted; no pending money damages claim when final judgment entered.
Impact of amended complaint on transfer Original complaint controls for transfer under §1631 despite amendment. Amendment supersedes original; no money damages claim remains. Amendment supercedes; no claim pending for transfer.
Effect of §1500 on potential transfer Transfer could proceed notwithstanding prior parallel APA claims. §1500 bars CFC jurisdiction when claims are pending in another court. §1500 barred transfer; §1631 inapplicable.

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2005) (amended complaint can supersede original for transfer analysis)
  • Rogers v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 1023 (Cl.Ct. 1992) (amendments affect what claims are before the court)
  • United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, U.S. , 131 S.Ct. 1723 (2011) (two suits are for or in respect to the same claim if operative facts substantially overlap)
  • United States v. Cnty. of Cook, Ill., 170 F.3d 1084 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (§1500 bars jurisdiction when a claim pending elsewhere)
  • In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2000) (involuntariness exception to amended complaint rule not applicable here)
  • Weeks Const., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. Auth., 797 F.2d 668 (8th Cir. 1986) (recognizes transfer and jurisdiction principles in related disputes)
Read the full case