Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. The United States (1988)

But see Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1988).

See Dico, 48 F.3d at 1203 ("That the legal theories are different does not mean that the relief is different."); Johns-Manville, 855 F.2d at 1566 ("In the present case, however, the relief sought from both courts is money, but under different theories.").

Johns- Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.

“Claims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 , 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056 , 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980); United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 606 , 106 S.Ct. 3116, 3121 , 92 L.Edüd 483 (1986) (“When ... the terms of a statute [are] unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except in rare and exceptional circumstances.”) (citations and internal quotations omitted); Johns-Manville v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988).

See Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 695 , 100 S.Ct. 1945 , 64 L.Ed.2d 611 (1980) (holding that the plain meaning of a statute governs “[ajbsent clear and strong congressional intent to the contrary”); Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988) (holding that before the court will construe the statute contrary to its plain meaning, petitioner “must show clear legislative history supporting its asserted construction.”).

See Keene Corp., 113 S.Ct. at 2037 ; Dico, Inc. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1199, 1203-04 (Fed.Cir.1995); Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 (1989).

In Loveladies, the court observed that “‘the legislative history and the cases indicate section 1500 was enacted for the benefit of the government and was intended to force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.’ ” 27 F.3d at 1550 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he purpose of section 1500 is to prohibit the filing and prosecution of the same claims'against the United States in two courts at the same time.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Same Operative Facts Alleged Claims are considered the same for purposes of § 1500 “where they arise from the same operative facts, even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck, 378 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

On the one hand, “[c]laims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck, 378 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989)); see also British Am.

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the purpose of Section 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the purpose of Section 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

In that case, the Federal Circuit simply held that the word “claim” in § 1500 “has no reference to the legal theory upon which claimant seeks to enforce his demand.” 855 F.2d at 1564 (emphasis added).

In that case, the Federal Circuit simply held that the word “claim” in § 1500 “has no reference to the legal theory upon which claimant seeks to enforce his demand.” 855 F.2d at 1564 (emphasis added).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

Co., 278 U.S. 269, 277-78 , 49 S.Ct. 133 , 73 L.Ed. 322 (1929); Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 , 51 S.Ct. 49 , 75 L.Ed. 156 (1930) (noting that literal terms of statute are only overridden if absurdity “so *808 gross as to shock the general moral or common sense.”); St.

Johns-Manville Corp., 855 F.2d at 1559 (“Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change.’ ”) (quoting Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 , 98 S.Ct. 866, 870 , 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978)).

Mr. Turner alleges the same operative facts in this case and in his earlier-filed district court case The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he term ‘claim’ in 28 U.S.C. § 1500 [is] defined by the operative facts, not the legal theories raised.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1563 (Fed.

See Johns–Manville v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1565 (Fed.

Johns–Manville v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1565 (Fed.

But "section 1500 has no reference to the legal theory upon which a claimant seeks to enforce his demand." Johns- Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.

As the Federal Circuit later explained: “Claims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck v. United States, 378 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

“Since the legal theory is not relevant, neither are the elements of proof necessary to present a prima facie case under that theory.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Section 1500 provides in relevant part: The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006). “[Tjhe term ‘claim’ in [Section] 1500 [is] defined by the operative facts alleged, not the legal theories raised.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Where the text of the statute is clear, as it is here, petitioner’s burden is a heavy one: “Petitioner is attempting to construe the statute contrary to its plain meaning, and in order to do so, must show clear legislative history supporting its asserted construction.” Massing v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 926 F.2d 1133 , 1135 (Fed.Cir.1991) (citing Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

First, in Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that "the term 'claim' in 28 U.S.C. § 1500 [is] defined by the operative facts alleged, not the legal theories raised.” 855 F.2d 1556, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988) (internal citation omitted).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988).

The Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he purpose of section 1500 is to prohibit the filing and prosecution of the same claims against the United States in two courts at the same time.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1988).

On the one hand, “[c]laims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck, 378 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

A. “Same Operative Facts” “Claims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck, 378 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1566 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“section 1500[i]s not applicable ... where a different type of relief is sought in the district court (equitable) from that sought in the Court of Claims (money).

The Federal Circuit noted that it had recently “reaffirmed the rule that it is ‘operative facts’ and not legal theories by which claims may be distinguished under § 1500 when the same relief-money damages-is sought.” Id. (footnote omitted). “ ‘Claims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.’ ” Id. at 1550 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 85…

Only the issue of “same operative facts” warrants a detailed discussion. 13 On one hand, “[cjlaims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Harbuck, 378 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.

The first step in statutory construction is “to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. 438, 450 , 122 S.Ct. 941 , 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (citing Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337, 340 , 117 S.Ct. 843 , 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997)). “[Ajbsent a very clear legislative intent, the plain meaning will prevail.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United St…

First, in Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, the Federal Circuit held that “the term ‘claim’ in 28 U.S.C. § 1500 [is] defined by the operative facts alleged, not the legal theories raised.” 855 F.2d 1556, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1988).

According to the Federal Circuit, the purpose of § 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir.1988) (claims are determined by their operative facts, not by the legal theories on which they are based); see also Brit ish American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438, 440 , 1939 WL 4266 (1939), cert. denied, 310 U.S. 627 , 60 S.Ct. 974 , 84 L.Ed. 1398 (1940) (“claim” has no reference to the legal theories by which a claimant seeks to enforce his demand, but to the underlying facts).

As the Federal Circuit has recognized, the purpose of § 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989); see also United States v. County of Cook, Illinois, 170 F.3d 1084, 1090-91 (Fed.Cir.1999).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988) (citations omitted).

Spodek v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 32, 36 (1999) (citing Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988)).

Thus, “absent a very clear legislative intent, the plain meaning will prevail.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988) (citing Aaron v. Sec.

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

This rule applies “even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1567 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the purpose of section 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Carp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).

Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1988).

As stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the purpose of section 1500 is to “force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066 , 109 S.Ct. 1342 , 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989).