Tritz v. United States Postal Service
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13811
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Tritz, a former Postal Service employee, sued alleging breaches of the 1991 and 2006 settlement agreements and other claims arising from her employment
- The district court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act as exclusive to the Court of Federal Claims for >$10,000
- The district court dismissed FTCA-based tort claims for lack of administrative exhaustion and dismissed other claims as duplicative or unsupported
- Tritz sought to void the 2006 settlement and recover her original jury award, plus costs and tax-related relief
- The court held that the Postal Service’s independent PRA-based jurisdiction grants district courts concurrent jurisdiction over claims against the Postal Service for more than $10,000
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act is exclusive or concurrent | Tritz argues Tucker Act exclusivity. | Postal Service argues exclusive jurisdiction in Claims Court for >$10k. | Concurrent jurisdiction exists with PRA |
| PRA independence of district courts over Postal Service claims | Pritz contends PRA does not grant independent district-court jurisdiction. | Postal Service asserts PRA grants independent district-court jurisdiction over >$10k. | PRA independently grants concurrent district-court jurisdiction |
| FTCA exhaustion and tort claims | Tritz alleges FTCA-based claims against the Postal Service | FTCA exhaustion required; no compliance shown | FTCA claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion |
| Effect of 2006 Settlement on res judicata and claims | Settlement voidable or non-binding on later claims | Settlement bars related claims; some claims dismissed as duplicative | Res judicata applies to retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims; contract claims analyzed on merits |
| CDA applicability to Postal Service breach claims | CDA bars district-court jurisdiction over Postal Service disputes | CDA not applicable to these settlement-based contracts; not procurement contracts | CDA does not preclude district-court jurisdiction here |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (jurisdictional reach of the Tucker Act explained)
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity and consent to suit define jurisdiction)
- Wright v. U.S. Postal Serv., 29 F.3d 1426 (9th Cir. 1994) (PRA and Small Business Act analogies for jurisdiction)
- In re Liberty Construction, 9 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1993) (claims against the U.S. may be heard in district court if independent basis exists)
- Benderson Development Co., Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 998 F.2d 959 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (jurisdictional treatment of Postal Service contract claims)
- Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (district court lacks jurisdiction where no independent basis exists)
- Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 302 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2002) (PRA original jurisdiction over Postal Service)
- McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2008) (reading Tucker Act with Littler Tucker Act)