VANE MINERALS(US), LLC v. United States, 1:12-cv-00646

VANE Minerals (US), LLC owns 678 lode mining claims on federal lands subject to the Northern Arizona Withdrawal (NAW) effective Jan. 21, 2012.
NAW withdrew more than a million acres from location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872.
Plaintiff intervened in related Arizona district court actions (National Mining Ass’n v. Salazar and Northwest Mining Ass’n v. Salazar) alleging NEPA, FLPMA, AWA violations.
On Sept. 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking NEPA/FLPMA/AWA relief and damages theories of inverse condemnation or estoppel.
The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) on Nov. 26, 2012 alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500.
Plaintiff dismissed the related district court complaints on Dec. 26, 2012, but the court held § 1500 divests the CFC from jurisdiction when pendency existed at the time of the initial filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1500 divest the CFC of jurisdiction here?	Plaintiff says prior district court dismissals cure the impediment.	Government says pendency existed at initial filing, so § 1500 bars jurisdiction.	Yes; § 1500 divests the CFC of jurisdiction.

Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1993) (tests for jurisdiction when another action pending)
Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (look to initial filing date to determine § 1500 applicability)
Harbuck v. United States, 378 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (pendency inquiry at time of filing governs § 1500)
In United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (S. Ct. 2011) (two suits are same claim if based on substantially same operative facts)
Young v. United States, 60 F. Cl. 418 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (dismissal before CFC filing can cure § 1500 issues)