Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States
105 Fed. Cl. 136
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Plaintiff Otoe-Missouria filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) alleging mismanagement of tribal assets by the United States.
- Hours later, on the same day, Otoe-Missouria filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) based on 28 U.S.C. § 1500 as interpreted by Tehono O’odham Nation (Tohono O’odham).
- Court must decide whether § 1500 bars the CFC from exercising jurisdiction when another suit is or becomes pending in another court.
- Tecon Eng’rs governs whether a case is “pending” for § 1500’s purposes; Tohono O’odham addressed a different timing scenario.
- Court concludes Tecon remains good law and that the CFC action was not precluded because the initial CFC filing occurred before the district court action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1500 bars CFC jurisdiction when another suit is filed later in district court. | Otoe-Missouria contends filing order preserves CFC jurisdiction. | Tohono O’odham overrides Tecon and disfavors Tecon’s order-of-filing rule. | CFC has jurisdiction; Tecon remains good law; filing order controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tecon Eng’rs, Inc. v. United States, 343 F.2d 943 (Ct.Cl.1965) (establishes the 'order of filing' rule for § 1500)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (defines 'pending' in the context of § 1500)
- Yakama Nation Hous. Auth. v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 478 (2011) (confirms timing analysis for pending actions under § 1500)
- Tohono O’odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (supreme court on § 1500 purpose; discusses preclusion of redundant litigation)
- Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 103 Fed.Cl. 613 (2012) (recognizes Tecon as controlling)
- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. United States, 104 Fed.Cl. 180 (2012) (affirms Tecon remains good law; discusses § 1500)
- Passamaquoddy Tribe v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 256 (2008) (affected by 'simultaneous filing' interpretation; limited relevance per Kaw/Keetoowah)
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. United States, 102 Fed.Cl. 17 (2011) (discusses Tecon and Tohono interplay)
- Hobbs v. United States, 168 Ct.Cl. 646 (1964) (historical § 1500 considerations)
- Maguire Indus., Inc. v. United States, 114 Ct.Cl. 687 (1949) (historical § 1500 considerations)
- United States v. County of Cook, Ill., 170 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir.1999) (interpretation of simultaneous filings in § 1500 context)