Nez Perce Tribe v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 139
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Nez Perce Tribe alleges government breached its trustee duties causing financial losses to the Tribe.
- The Tribe simultaneously filed a DC district court action alleging the same underlying facts but different relief.
- This Court previously held Section 1500 did not bar jurisdiction because the district court suit was not pending when this action was filed.
- The government now moves to revisit jurisdiction under United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, arguing Section 1500 bars the claim.
- Section 1500 requires a suit be pending in another court and for or in respect to the same claim.
- Tohono O’odham held that pending status and same operative facts bar this court if relief sought overlaps; Tecon timing rule remains intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 1500 bar this court’s jurisdiction? | Nez Perce argues first-filed status preserves jurisdiction. | Government argues later-filed district suit divests this court under 1500. | No, jurisdiction not barred. |
| Does Tohono O’odham modify the Tecon timing rule? | Tohono O’odham does not undermine Tecon’s timing rule. | Tohono O’odham broadens the bar beyond timing, affecting pending suits. | Tohono O’odham does not overrule Tecon; timing rule remains intact. |
| Are Corona Coal/In re Skinner arguments retrofitably applicable to current Section 1500 text? | Not argued to apply; Tecon remains controlling for timing. | Corona Coal and In re Skinner suggest alternative views on pending suits and jurisdiction. | Unpersuasive; current text governs and supports dismissal not warranted. |
| What is the controlling standard for ‘has pending’ and ‘for or in respect to’? | Pending status is determined at time of filing; earlier decision applied. | Tohono O’odham and prior precedents alter or clarify the standard. | Plain meaning and Tecon timing rule prevail; no bar here. |
| What is the overall effect of the government’s motion under Rule 12? | Motion to dismiss should be denied given jurisdictional posture. | Motion should be granted in light of Tohono O’odham. | Denied; government’s motion to dismiss is denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 343 F.2d 943 (Ct.Cl.1965) (Section 1500 divests only if a later suit on same claim is pending)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (jurisdiction depends on state of things at time of action brought)
- Tohono O’odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (U.S. 2011) (common facts can bar jurisdiction even if relief not overlapping)
- Loveladies, Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir.1994) (same operative facts required to bar under 1500 when relief overlaps)
- Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1948) (doctrine of claim preclusion informs statutory interpretation)