holding that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over breach-of-contraet claims exceeding $10,000, and ordering that a complaint filed in district court respecting such a claim be dismissed without prejudice to permit refiling in the proper court
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over breach-of-contraet claims exceeding $10,000, and ordering that a complaint filed in district court respecting such a claim be dismissed without prejudice to permit refiling in the proper court
- holding that the plaintiff should have brought her lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims because “she advance[d] a contract claim against the United States in excess of $10,000”
- concluding that the breach of settlement agreement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act
- holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over Title VII claims that depended upon the finding of a breach of settlement agreement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify
the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made
before the bound volumes go to press.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued November 18, 2004 Decided December 3, 2004
No. 03-5245
YVONNE BROWN,
APPELLANT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 02cv00300)
Reuben Collins argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellant.
Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for
appellees. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Wain-
stein, U.S. Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S.
Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence and Brian J. Sonfield, Assis-
tant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances.
Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.
The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out
of time.
2
Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and TATEL,
Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.
Per Curiam: The facts of this case are recounted in Brown
v. United States, 271 F. Supp. 2d 225, 226–28 (D.D.C. 2003),
and need not be repeated here.
On appeal Brown challenges only the district court’s dis-
missal of Counts I and III of her amended complaint, which
counts state claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,
and for breach of contract, respectively. Brown alleges the
United States Department of Agriculture breached the terms
of its settlement agreement with her and that its breach
entitles her both to damages in excess of $10,000 and to the
reinstatement of her administrative complaint alleging dis-
crimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
The Government points out, and Brown now agrees with
respect to Count III, this case should have been brought in
the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act
because she advances a contract claim against the United
States in excess of $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We
agree with the Government as to both counts.
In order for Brown either to pursue remedies for breach of
contract or to seek relief under Title VII, she must first prove
the Department breached the settlement agreement. And
because this contract question arises in a suit against the
United States for more than $10,000 in damages, jurisdiction
to decide whether the Department breached the settlement
agreement lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims.
See Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003);
Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Therefore, Counts I and III of Brown’s amended complaint
should have been dismissed without rather than with preju-
dice. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district
court for the entry of an appropriate order.
So ordered.