Johnathan Daniel King v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 396
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Federal employees asserted FLSA overtime claims (228 agents) against the United States CBP in COFC; dispute concerned whether COFC has Tucker Act jurisdiction to hear FLSA claims over $10,000.
- Government moved to transfer case to District of New Mexico under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 claiming COFC lacks jurisdiction due to a detailed remedial scheme in the FLSA.
- Government argued Bormes forecloses COFC jurisdiction by displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction in cases with a detailed remedial scheme.
- Plaintiffs argued FLSA waives sovereign immunity and COFC remains a proper forum; transfer would be inefficient given nationwide potential consolidation.
- Court denied transfer, concluding COFC has jurisdiction under FLSA, and ordered joint status report on discovery/summary judgment schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COFC has jurisdiction to hear FLSA claims after Bormes. | King plaintiffs rely on FLSA's waiver and lack of forum-specific limitation. | Government contends Bormes eliminates COFC jurisdiction where statute has a detailed remedial scheme. | COFC has jurisdiction; transfer not proper. |
| Whether § 1631 transfer is appropriate given COFC jurisdiction. | COFC should retain jurisdiction; transfer would be inefficient. | District court is the proper forum if COFC lacks jurisdiction under Bormes. | Transfer denied. |
| Whether FLSA's forum provision allows COFC as a competent forum for federal employees' money damages. | FLSA's text allows suits in any federal or state court of competent jurisdiction; COFC is proper. | Detailed remedial scheme may channel claims elsewhere. | FLSA permits COFC; COFC is proper forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (detailed remedial scheme limits Tucker Act as sole avenue for sovereign immunity waiver)
- El-Sheikh v. United States, 177 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explicit FLSA waiver permits suit against U.S. and assesses forum for relief)
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 133 S. Ct. 2053 (2013) (statutory forum shows Congress’s intended forum withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Zumerling v. Devine, 769 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (FLSA waiver but Tucker Act governs jurisdiction in COFC)
- Saraco v. United States, 61 F.3d 863 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (confirms COFC as forum for FLSA claims above $10,000 under Tucker Act)