U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation

Court of Federal Claims (CFC): two suits are for or in respect to the same claim, precluding CFC jurisdiction, if they are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit; since 1868, Congress has restricted the jurisdiction of the CFC and its predecessors when related actions are pending elsewhere. Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 212, held that two suits are for or in respect to the same claim when they are “based on substantially the same operative facts . . . , at least if there is some overlap in the relief requested,” but it reserved the question whether the jurisdictional bar operates if suits based on the same operative facts do not seek overlapping relief; Keene permits two constructions of “for or in respect to” the same claim, one based on facts alone and the other on factual plus remedial overlap. The former is the more reasonable interpretation in light of the statute’s use of a similar phrase in a way consistent only with factual overlap. The CFC bar applies where the other action is against a “person who, . . . when the cause of action . . . arose, was, in respect thereto, acting” under color of federal law. But at the time that a cause of action arose, the person could not act in respect to the relief requested, for no complaint was yet filed. Although the phrase at issue involves a “claim” rather than a cause of action, there is reason to think that both phrases refer to facts alone and not to relief. As Keene explained, “ ‘claim’ is used here synonymously with ‘cause of action,’ ” 508 U. S., at 210. And if the phrase that uses “cause of action,” the more technical term, does not embrace the concept of remedy, it is reasonable to conclude that neither phrase does; The Nation errs in arguing that this Court’s interpretation unjustly forces plaintiffs to choose between partial remedies available in different courts. The Nation could have recovered any losses in the CFC alone; the substantial overlap in operative facts between the Nation’s District Court and CFC suits precludes jurisdiction in the CFC. Both actions allege that the United States holds the same assets in trust for the Nation’s benefit, and they describe almost identical breaches of fiduciary duty (U.S.S.Ct., 26.04.11, U.S. v. Tohono O’odham Nation, J. Kennedy).

Compétence juridictionnelle et litispendance : Court of Federal Claims (CFC) et U.S. District Court : le demandeur a d’abord saisi la cour fédérale, puis ultérieurement la Court of Federal Claims, sur la base des mêmes faits juridiquement déterminants. Par conséquent, la litispendance s’applique et le demandeur ne peut saisir la Court of Federal Claims. Il aurait pu choisir de porter l’ensemble du litige, dès le départ, devant la Court of Federal Claims, ce qu’il n’a pas fait. La Cour précise que ce sont les faits à la base de l’action qui doivent être semblables pour empêcher la compétence de la CFC, et non pas les remèdes requis de la cour. En l’espèce, les deux actions allèguent que les Etats-Unis détiennent les mêmes biens sous forme de trust pour le bénéfice du demandeur aux deux actions ; en outre, les allégués décrivent des violations du devoir de diligence presque identiques dans les deux actions.