Solida v. United States

• Decision Date: 26 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–5058.,2014–5058.
• Citation: 778 F.3d 1351
• Parties: Ministerio Roca SOLIDA, Plaintiff–Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

778 F.3d 1351

Ministerio Roca SOLIDA, Plaintiff–Appellant

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2014–5058.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 26, 2015.

Joseph F. Becker, Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, Reno, Nevada, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Anna Katselas, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Sam Hirsch, Gregory D. Page, Andrew C. Mergen, Katherine J. Barton.

Before WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge WALLACH. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge TARANTO.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

This case presents the question of whether a suit brought against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because an earlier-filed related claim against the United States remains pending in a United States district court. Because the Claims Court correctly held jurisdiction is improper under these circumstances, this court affirms.

Background

In 2006, plaintiff-appellant Ministerio Roca Solida (“Roca Solida”), a non-profit religious organization, purchased a forty-acre parcel of land in Nevada. At the time of purchase, a desert stream flowed across the property, the water rights to which Roca Solida also purchased. The water supplied a recreational pond and was used for baptisms, among other uses. Roca Solida's property is situated within a national wildlife refuge that is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”). According to defendant-appellee United States, an FWS water restoration project completed in 2010 “restored [the] stream to its natural channel,” the effect of which was to divert the stream away from Roca Solida's property, depriving it of water it would have otherwise enjoyed. Appellee's Br. 2–3.

In response, Roca Solida instituted two lawsuits against the United States. First, it brought suit in federal district court in Nevada, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief on the basis of alleged violations under the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and also “at least $86,639.00 in damage[s]” under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80. Appellant's App. 41. Second, it brought suit two days later in the Claims Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensatory damages on the basis that the diversion project constituted an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and asserting FWS negligently executed the water diversion project, causing $86,639 in damages to “land, structures, and animals.” Id. at 14–15.

The United States moved to dismiss the Claims Court action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the pending district court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006). The Claims Court dismissed the case without prejudice. Roca Solida timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (2012).

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

An order dismissing a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 is reviewed de novo. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed.Cir.2011). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed.Cir.2002).

II. Jurisdiction Is Barred by Statute

The Claims Court “has no jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has another suit for or in respect to that claim pending against the United States or its agents.” United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 1727, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011). This rule derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1500, which states:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 1500 (emphasis added). Two inquiries are required when determining whether § 1500 applies: “(1) whether there is an earlier-filed suit or process pending in another court, and, if so, (2) whether the claims asserted in the earlier-filed case are for or in respect to the same claim(s) asserted in the later-filed Court of Federal Claims action.” Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Roca Solida does not dispute the suit filed in Nevada district court constitutes an earlier-filed suit for purposes of the first inquiry.

With respect to the second inquiry, the Supreme Court has explained that “[t]wo suits are for or in respect to the same claim, precluding jurisdiction in the [Claims Court], if they are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit.” Tohono, 131 S.Ct. at 1731 (emphases added). That is, the two co-pending suits need not be identical. See id. at 1728 (quoting Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 212, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993)) (“The phrase ‘in respect to’ ... ‘make[s] it clear that Congress did not intend the statute to be rendered useless by a narrow concept of identity.’ ”). In addition, it is irrelevant whether the relief sought in the two co-pending suits is the same or different (e.g., injunction versus money damages). Id. at 1731. All that matters is that the two suits be based on “substantially the same operative facts.” Id.

In this case, the Claims Court found the two pending actions “[met] the standard set forth in Tohono,” i.e., they were “ ‘based on substantially the same operative facts.’ ” Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. 571, at 575 (2014) (quoting Tohono, 131 S.Ct. at 1731). The Claims Court noted “the claims in both actions arise from [Roca Solida's] ownership of the same parcel of land and water and its alleged injuries as a result of the same FWS water diversion project,” and also noted the two complaints used “virtually identical language.” Id.

In Plaintiff's Opposition to United States' Motion to Dismiss, Roca Solida argued takings claims “do not (necessarily) subsume other claims arising from the same nucleus of operative fact.” Appellant's App. 53 (emphasis added); see id. at 59. On appeal, Roca Solida repeats this language, see Appellant's Br. 14, also noting its “[c]omplaints are similar because they describe the same errant project,” Reply Br. 10. Although Roca Solida criticizes the “same operative facts” standard articulated in Tohono, it does not argue that its co-pending suits are not based on substantially the same operative facts. See Reply Br. 8 (“The Tohono [C]ourt's notion that claims are identical if they arise from the same transaction or have a substantial overlap in the operative facts is deeply flawed....”).

This court concludes Roca Solida's two co-pending suits are based on substantially the same operative facts. Jurisdiction in the Claims Court is therefore barred under § 1500.

III. Appellant's Arguments Are Precluded by Binding Precedent

Roca Solida presents three principal arguments challenging, in effect, the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1500. These arguments relate to Congressional intent, pre- Tohono judicial interpretation of § 1500, and the extent to which the rule of Tohono fulfills the goals of judicial economy. Roca Solida additionally attempts to distinguish Tohono on the basis that Tohono did not involve a statute of limitations and the present matter does. Each of these arguments is addressed in turn.

A. Tohono Represents Binding Precedent, Notwithstanding Appellant's Assertions of Congressional Intent

First, Roca Solida argues “Congress did not intend for § 1500 to put plaintiffs to a choice between two nonduplicative remedies.” Appellant's Br. 17. It notes § 1500 was enacted during the aftermath of the Civil War to prevent duplicative lawsuits that could have allowed plaintiffs to “obtain [ ] twice what they deserved.” Id. at 18. Unlike such duplicative remedies, Roca Solida asserts, its desired remedies are nonduplicative because it seeks only to be made whole.¹Id. at 21. Roca Solida maintains it cannot “be made whole even once,” id. at 21, “[b]ecause the Court of Claims may not entertain claims for declaratory and injunctive relief[ ²] ... just as the [d]istrict [c]ourt may not compensate a temporary or permanent taking where damages exceed $10,000,” id. at 17.

Roca Solida explains it is seeking injunctive relief (which the Claims Court cannot provide) in the district court, and only if injunctive relief is denied will it seek monetary compensation for the permanent loss of water (which, if the amount exceeds $10,000, the district court cannot provide) in the Claims Court. Appellant's Br. 21. It notes it has requested a stay in the Claims Court pending the outcome in the district court. Id. at 5; see also Appellant's App. 16.

In requesting relief that parallels the present case in important ways, the plaintiff in Tohono brought suit in United States district court, alleging federal officials breached their fiduciary duty in managing tribal assets and requesting an accounting, i.e., equitable relief. Tohono, 131 S.Ct. at 1727. In a simultaneous action before the Claims Court, the plaintiff sought money damages on the basis of allegations of “almost identical violations of fiduciary duty.” Id.

Holding the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to § 1500, the Tohono Court found irrelevant the fact that there was no “remedial overlap.” Id. at 1728. Plaintiffs may not avoid the jurisdictional bar of § 1500, the Court stated, “by carving up a single transaction into overlapping...