From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 3, 2004
389 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

Summary

holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from Greenhill v. Spellings

Opinion

No. 03-5245.

Argued November 18, 2004.

Decided December 3, 2004.

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. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S. Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence and Brian J. Sonfield, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.


Opinion for the Court filed 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 dismissal 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 discrimination 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 prejudice. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district court for the entry of an appropriate order.

So ordered.


Summaries of

Brown v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 3, 2004
389 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from Greenhill v. Spellings

holding that a breach of settlement agreement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. Lew

holding that a breach of settlement agreement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims

Summary of this case from Lawrence v. Lew

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”

Summary of this case from Smalls v. Emanuel

holding that a breach of settlement agreement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims

Summary of this case from Allen v. Napolitano

holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over Title VII claims that depended upon the finding of a breach of settlement agreement

Summary of this case from Schmidt v. Shah

holding that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over breach-of-contract 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

Summary of this case from Boston Edison Company v. U.S.

concluding that the breach of settlement agreement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from Smalls v. Emanuel

affirming dismissal where "case should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act because [plaintiff] advance[d] a contract claim against the United States in excess of $10,000"

Summary of this case from Chandler v. Kiely

recognizing the jurisdictional limits established by the Tucker Act

Summary of this case from Patel v. Ambit Grp.

dismissing Title VII claim where it required that plaintiff "first prove the Department breached settlement agreement"

Summary of this case from Lipovsky v. Vilsack

In Brown, on the other hand, the CFC had jurisdiction when the plaintiff both expressly alleged a breach of contract claim and sought monetary damages relating to a breach of a settlement agreement.

Summary of this case from Arce v. Potter
Case details for

Brown v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Yvonne BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Dec 3, 2004

Citations

389 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

Citing Cases

Hansson v. Norton

Upon de novo review, see Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 360 F.3d 188, 190-91 (D.C. Cir. 2004), we hold that the…

Rochon v. Gonzales

Further, it is unclear whether the district court had direct jurisdiction over the claim arising out of the…