US Attorneys > USAM > Title 4 > Civil Resource Manual
prev | next

47.

Court of Federal Claims Litigation

Under the "Little Tucker Act," 28 U.S.C. § 1346, the district courts possess concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Federal Claims to entertain any monetary claim against the United States for an amount not exceeding $10,000 "founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages not sounding in tort." When more than $10,000 is claimed, the Court of Federal Claims possesses exclusive jurisdiction in these cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Although the general rule is that jurisdiction is established at the time of filing, there is precedent that a claim which is for less than $10,000 when filed but is accruing so that it will be for more than $10,000 at the time of judgment is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Goble v. Marsh, 684 F.2d 12 (D.C. Cir. 1982). It is settled that a plaintiff may remain in the district court under the Tucker Act even if his damages exceed $10,000 as long as he waives all recovery in excess of $10,000. E.g., Stone v. United States, 683 F.2d 449, 451 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

There is precedent that a district court possesses jurisdiction to grant equitable relief even though the Court of Federal Claims possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the derivative monetary claim. E.g., Giordano v. Roudebush, 617 F.2d 511 (8th Cir. 1980) (holding in a civilian personnel case that a district court has jurisdiction to grant reinstatement even though the Court of Federal Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over a claim for monetary damages exceeding $10,000). The majority of courts, however, have adopted the better rule that, when the employee claims reinstatement and more than $10,000 of back pay, the Court of Federal Claims possesses exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. E.g., Keller v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 679 F.2d 220 (11th Cir. 1982); Cook v. Arentzen, 582 F.2d 870 (4th Cir. 1978); Carter v. Seamans, 411 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 941 (1970).

Disputes arising out of contracts with the federal government are generally governed by the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (CDA). Both claims by a contractor against the government and claims by the government against a contractor must be decided first by the contracting officer. 41 U.S.C. § 605(a). A contractor may contest the contracting officer's final decision either by filing a direct action in the Court of Federal Claims or by appealing to a board of contract appeals. 41 U.S.C. §§ 606, 609(a)(1). The CDA provides the exclusive method for resolution of any dispute relating to a government contract and district courts possess no jurisdiction in these cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) ("(T)he district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action or claim against the United States founded upon any express or implied contract with the United States or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort which are subject to sections 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978"); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2) ("The Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim by or against, or dispute with, a contractor arising under section 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978."); United States v. Dabbs, 608 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Miss. 1985) (holding that the CDA provides the exclusive method for challenging the final decision of the contracting officer.) If a claim arising out of a government contract is subject to the CDA, it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. A & S Council Oil Co. v. Lader, 56 F.3d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1995); but see Quality Tooling, Inc. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1569, (Fed. Cir. 1995) (district court, sitting in bankruptcy, may entertain a CDA claim). For a discussion of affirmative suits under the CDA, see USAM 4-4.420.

The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (FCIA) authorized the Court of Federal Claims "to grant declaratory judgments and such equitable and extraordinary relief as it deems proper, including but not limited to injunctive relief" in bid protest cases brought before contract award. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3). Award after the complaint has been filed does not divest the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction. See F. Alderete General Contractor v. United States, 715 F.2d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Court of Federal Claims possesses exclusive jurisdiction in these pre-award cases. Rex Systems, Inc. v. Holiday, 814 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1987); but see, In re Smith & Wesson, 757 F.2d 431 (1st Cir. 1985); Coco Brothers, Inc. v. Pierce, 741 F.2d 675 (3d Cir. 1984) (looking behind the express language of the statute to its legislative history). It is settled that, notwithstanding the FCIA, the district courts still have jurisdiction over bid protests filed after contract award. B.K. Instruments, Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 713 (2d Cir. 1983).

If a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is filed in the district court, a motion to dismiss or a motion to transfer is appropriate. Section 1631 of title 28, United States Code, authorizes a court without jurisdiction over a case to transfer it to a different court in which the case could have been brought "if it is in the interest of justice." An order granting or denying, in whole or in part, such a motion is immediately appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(A).

[updated May 1998] [cited in USAM 4-4.210; Civil Resource Manual 148]