Vane Minerals (Us), Llc v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 253

VANE Minerals (US), LLC owns 678 lode mining claims on federal land subject to the Northern Arizona Withdrawal (NAW).
NAW withdrew lands from location/entry under the Mining Law of 1872 (Public Land Order No. 7787, Jan. 9, 2012).
Plaintiff filed a September 27, 2012 Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging NEPA, FLPMA, AWA violations and seeking damages (inverse condemnation/estoppel).
Plaintiff previously intervened in related District of Arizona actions and those actions were consolidated with others.
Government moved to dismiss the CFC action under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 26, 2012.
Plaintiff dismissed related District of Arizona claims on Dec. 26, 2012; CFC case proceeded to §1500 analysis, then dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1500 divests CFC jurisdiction	Plaintiff contends dismissals cured jurisdictional defect	Gov’t asserts pendency existed at filing; dismissal after filing cannot cure	§ 1500 divests; no jurisdiction to hear the claims

Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (pendency determined at filing time; cures after filing insufficient)
Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (look to facts at initial filing to assess § 1500 applicability)
Harbuck v. United States, 378 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( pendency determination of § 1500 timing)
United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (two suits same claim if substantially the same operative facts)
Young v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 418 (2004) (pre-filing dismissal can affect jurisdiction if conditions differ)
Glick v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 435 (1992) (earlier rule treating district dismissals as curing § 1500 defect)
Palmer v. United States, 168 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (general rule on Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdiction)