Here are the materials in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
9-1 US Motion to Dismiss
21 US Reply
23 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
The government argues that Counts One, Two, and Three of the pending case must be dismissed under § 1500 because those Counts raise claims that are the same as the claims pending in the Nevada litigation. Plaintiffs contend that the claims in both lawsuits are not the same and therefore Counts One, Two, and Three need not be dismissed. In addition, the government argues that Counts Three and Four must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because they seek equitable relief and a declaratory judgment that are outside the jurisdiction of this court. Plaintiffs did not respond to the government’s arguments regarding this court’s lack of jurisdiction over Counts Three and Four. For the reasons discussed below, the court agrees with the government that § 1500 bars the court from considering Counts One, Two, and Three of plaintiffs’ complaint and that Counts Three and Four also must be dismissed as seeking relief outside the jurisdiction of the court. The government’s motion to dismiss the complaint is therefore GRANTED.
Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
5 Amended Complaint
13-1 Motion to Dismiss
27 Skokomish Response
37 Opinion Granting Mot Dismiss
What the Skokomish River once looked like:
Emily S. Bremer & Jonathan R. Siegel have published Clearing the Path to Justice: The Need to Reform 28 U.S.C. § 1500, in the Alabama Law Review.
Plaintiffs suing the United States face a little-known obstacle to justice: 28 U.S.C. § 1500. This statute prohibits the United States Court of Federal Claims from exercising jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has the same claim pending in another court. This apparently sensible rule causes considerable trouble because a “claim” is understood to include all claims based on the same operative facts, and Congress has required that certain types of claims against the United States must go to different courts. Therefore, a plaintiff with multiple claims against the United States may neither be able to bring the claims together in one case nor split them into separate cases. Section 1500 may effectively compel such a plaintiff to pursue only one claim and abandon the others. This unjust result is contrary to fundamental principles of modern civil procedure, which allow a plaintiff to pursue multiple claims against a defendant. Worse, it serves no good purpose. This Article argues that Congress should repeal § 1500 to provide justice to plaintiffs with multiple claims against the United States.
This article is based on a report they co-authored for the United States Administrative Conference.