Background
In March two thousand twenty-five, John W. Markham filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging illegal termination of a federal employment contract and various other claims. That district court dismissed the complaint in February two thousand twenty-six after Markham failed to pay filing fees. In December two thousand twenty-five, while that district court action was still pending, Markham filed a similar suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging the same contract termination and claims. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under Section one thousand five hundred of Title twenty-eight, reasoning that the suit was barred because a related action was pending elsewhere. Markham appealed, and the United States moved for summary affirmance.
The court’s reasoning
The court agreed that the judgment was so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal existed. Although the Tucker Act generally grants the Court of Federal Claims authority over breach-of-contract actions against the United States, Section one thousand five hundred bars review of any claim for which the plaintiff has a pending suit in any other court. The court found that the action in the Western District of Washington was clearly pending when Markham filed the present action. Furthermore, the two actions were based on substantially the same operative facts. The court rejected Markham’s argument that the dismissal of the district court action or his status as a contractor should alter the analysis, noting that the jurisdictional determination depends on the state of things at the time the action was brought.
What it means going forward
The ruling reinforces the strict jurisdictional bar of Section one thousand five hundred, preventing plaintiffs from pursuing parallel suits in the Court of Federal Claims while a related case is active in another federal court. It clarifies that the bar applies based on the pendency of the other suit at the time of filing, even if that other suit is subsequently dismissed.