Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 571
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Solid Rock Ministry is a Nevada church that purchased a 40‑acre parcel in Nye County in 2006 for $500,000 with water rights.
- The property sits within Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and is overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which completed a water diversion project in August 2010.
- Solid Rock alleges the diversion redirected water around its parcel, causing damages including $86,639 from flooding on December 23, 2010.
- Solid Rock previously filed a District of Nevada suit on August 22, 2012 seeking injunctive relief, due process and First Amendment relief, FTCA damages, and Fifth Amendment takings relief.
- Solid Rock filed the present takings case in the Court of Federal Claims on August 24, 2012, seeking stay and, later, monetary damages; the government moved to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The court granted the motion, dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under § 1500.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1500 bars the Court of Federal Claims from hearing the action | Solid Rock argues lack of hardship and different relief allow parallel suits | Government contends § 1500 bars suits based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of relief | Yes; § 1500 bars the Court of Federal Claims. |
| Whether the two actions involve substantially the same operative facts | Solid Rock contends not duplicative because it seeks different remedies | Government cites substantial factual overlap from the same water diversion project | Yes; substantially the same operative facts exist. |
| Whether precedents like Loveladies Harbor control given Tohono O’Odham limitations | Solid Rock argues Loveladies Harbor may permit concurrent relief | Tohono controls; no hardship exception permitted | Tohono governs; Loveladies Harbor overruled for § 1500 purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tohono O’Odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (§ 1500 bars claims based on the same operative facts regardless of relief sought)
- Cent. Pines Land Co., L.L.C. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360 (2012) (applies Tohono’s standard for ‘same operative facts’)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (§ 1500 requires dismissal if same operative facts and overlapping relief)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (earlier framework rejected by Tohono; not controlling post-Tohono)
- Pellegrini v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 47 (2012) (case involving same underlying facts and § 1500 analysis)
- U.S. Home Corp. v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 191 (2012) (recognizes § 1500 application following Tohono)