Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 17
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe filed two lawsuits on December 29, 2006—one in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) and one in the District Court—challenging the United States’ management of its trust assets.
- The Tribe seeks damages in the CFC and a federal declaratory judgment plus accounting in the District Court.
- The Government moved to dismiss in the CFC under 28 U.S.C. § 1500, arguing the District Court suit was pending and based on substantially the same facts.
- The Court previously stayed proceedings pending the District Court’s accounting issues, then lifted the stay in 2011 to address jurisdiction.
- The core issue is whether the District Court suit was pending at the time the CFC suit was filed, and whether the two suits are based on substantially the same operative facts.
- The Court ultimately concludes the District Court suit was pending and that the two suits share substantially the same operative facts, triggering § 1500 dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the two suits based on substantially the same claim? | Coeur d’Alene argues the District Court suit seeks accounting, while the CFC suit seeks damages; not the same claim. | Government argues both suits arise from the same mismanagement of the same trust assets and fiduciary duties. | Yes; based on substantially the same operative facts. |
| Was the District Court suit pending under § 1500 when the CFC suit was filed? | Plaintiff contends the two suits were filed on the same day, so no claim was pending. | Government asserts the district suit was pending and thus barred § 1500 jurisdiction in the CFC. | District Court suit was pending; thus § 1500 bars the CFC suit. |
| Does Tecon Engineers’ order-of-filing rule govern whether the CFC retains jurisdiction when suits are filed the same day? | Plaintiff contends Tecon is obsolete or distinguishable, allowing CFC to proceed if filed first or simultaneously. | Government maintains Tecon is binding and controls when filings occur on the same day. | Tecon binding; same-day filings treated as simultaneous; CFC lacks jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tohono O’odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (defines 'for or in respect to' based on substantially the same operative facts)
- Keene v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (time-of-filing rule; jurisdiction depends on facts at filing)
- UNR Indus., Inc. v. United States, 962 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc; discusses forum election and § 1500 purpose)
- Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 343 F.2d 943 (Ct.Cl.1965) (order-of-filing rule; filing first controls jurisdiction)
- Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537 (1824) (jurisdiction depends on state of things at time of action)
- British American Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438 (1939) (discusses sequence of filing in § 1500 context)