99 Fed. Cl. 394
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Mineral interests at issue were taken temporarily at Fort Polk and Kisatchie NF in Vernon Parish, LA, with the government’s taking found to be temporary and compensable at $1,667,042.86 plus interest after trial on liability and damages; attorneys’ fees remained unresolved.
- Plaintiffs previously filed a district court quiet-title action in 1996 and a CFC action in 1998 seeking compensation for the same or overlapping interests.
- Supreme Court’s Tohono O’Odham Nation decision held § 1500 bars access to the CFC where another suit for or in respect to the same claim is pending and that two suits are for or in respect to the same claim if based on substantially the same operative facts.
- Following Tohono, the government moved to dismiss the CFC case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1500, arguing that the Louisiana district court action and the CFC action were the same claim.
- The court concluded that the original CFC complaint and the Louisiana district court complaint shared the same operative facts and thus were barred by § 1500; a 2003 First Amended and Restated Complaint was treated as a de facto supplemental pleading and could not cure the jurisdictional defect; the dismissal was granted despite hardship to the plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1500 precludes the CFC jurisdiction. | Lawton argues no substantial overlap; relief sought differs. | District court action and CFC action share operative facts. | Yes, §1500 precludes jurisdiction. |
| Whether the 2003 Amended and Restated Complaint rescues jurisdiction as a supplemental pleading. | Supplemental pleading cures jurisdictional defect. | Supplemental pleading cannot cure §1500 bar. | No, cannot rescue jurisdiction. |
| Do the Louisiana district court and original CFC complaints share the same operative facts? | Operative facts differ; background facts not controlling. | Operative facts substantially overlap. | Yes, they share the same operative facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tohono O’Odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (clarified §1500 identity of claims; two suits with substantially overlapping operative facts preclude CFC jurisdiction)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (broad reading of ‘in respect to’ language; limits to narrow identity of claims)
- Black v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 93 F.3d 781 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (supplemental pleading cannot rescue jurisdiction under express bar statutes)
- Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Rule 15(d) supplements may cure some jurisdictional defects; not always—context matters)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (amended complaint; look to amended pleading to determine jurisdiction; distinguishes voluntary amendments from §1500 bar)