In 2006, the Tohono O’odham Nation filed a complaint against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the United States had breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with its management of the Nation’s trust assets. One day later, it filed a similar complaint against the United States in the CFC. In March 2009, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the CFC’s dismissal of the case, concluding “that the Nation’s complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeks relief that is different from the relief sought in its earlier-filed district court action." On April 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review. Question presented:Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1500 — which precludes jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) over ”any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff has any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court” – deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
In 2006, the Tohono O’odham Nation filed a complaint against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the United States had breached certain fiduciary duties in connection with its management of the Nation’s trust assets. One day later, it filed a similar complaint against the United States in the CFC. In March 2009, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the CFC’s dismissal of the case, concluding “that the Nation’s complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeks relief that is different from the relief sought in its earlier-filed district court action." On April 19, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case for review. Question presented:Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1500 — which precludes jurisdiction by the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) over ”any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff has any suit or process against the United States” or its agents “pending in any other court” – deprives the CFC of jurisdiction over a claim seeking monetary relief for the government’s alleged violation of fiduciary obligations if the plaintiff has another suit pending in federal district court based on substantially the same operative facts, especially when the plaintiff seeks monetary relief or other overlapping relief in the two suits.
Supreme+Court+2010+Cases.docx