[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Each side has 20 minutes allotted in this case, but we might not take all of it this time. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:14] Speaker 01: May it please the Court, Jeffrey McCoy, for Chinook Landing, LLC. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: I would like to begin with the question of this Court's jurisdiction and whether it should be transferred to the Federal Circuit. [00:00:26] Speaker 01: asked us to to be prepared for and your honor whether or not this court has jurisdiction very similar to the Tucker Act claim or the supposed Tucker Act claim last it's how this court defines the Tucker Act claim here we do believe that this should be transferred because we believe that it is our little Tucker Act claim is seeking past [00:00:50] Speaker 01: damages and the Quiet Title Act claim is looking into the future. [00:00:57] Speaker 01: I did submit a 28-J letter. [00:01:00] Speaker 01: The standard, I think, is laid out well in Doe versus United States from the Federal Circuit and basically talks about what's the relief. [00:01:07] Speaker 01: And I'd just like to read a line from Doe, which [00:01:13] Speaker 01: It was interpreting Motaz, which is a quiet title act case that the Supreme Court said. [00:01:18] Speaker 01: The court explained that the plaintiff in Motaz was not seeking whatever compensation she was entitled to at the time the government allegedly took property that she allegedly had interest in. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: Rather, she was claiming that she still owed her interest in the property and was seeking to force the government to buy those interests. [00:01:33] Speaker 01: And here we have two separate claims. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: One is the Little Tucker Act claim, which was from 2014 when Mr. Lund revoked permission to essentially when he filed the Quiet Title Act claim. [00:01:44] Speaker 01: That under First English is a temporary physical taking. [00:01:47] Speaker 01: That was the alleged. [00:01:48] Speaker 01: And then the Quiet Title Act claim is saying, okay, going forward you are not allowed to use it unless, as my friend from the other side explained, the Quiet Title Act does allow you to essentially exercise them in a domain and purchase the [00:02:03] Speaker 01: the position. [00:02:04] Speaker 01: So we do see them as two separate claims, and yes, there is some confusion about where it falls, and that's why it was, I mean, we filed here in the court that has broader jurisdiction, but ultimately we do believe that under 1631, and under the, as this court said in Amity, [00:02:24] Speaker 01: 1631 is a very low bar to transfer. [00:02:27] Speaker 01: And because of all of these different issues that you just spent an hour debating, we do feel that there was some uncertainty, but now at this point, we do believe that it should be transferred to the federal circuit. [00:02:37] Speaker 03: And the complaint, if I'm reading it correctly, expressly, this is paragraph 12, asked for an award of compensation. [00:02:46] Speaker 03: You're seeking monetary. [00:02:47] Speaker 01: Yes, monetary damages for that temporary taking. [00:02:51] Speaker 01: Under the first motion to dismiss, [00:02:55] Speaker 01: The court viewed, the magistrate judge actually suggested or recommended dismissing the Tucker Act claim because of these arguments that have been made earlier today. [00:03:05] Speaker 01: District Court did not adopt that and called it an alternative theory. [00:03:09] Speaker 01: I think it's a separate claim and not an alternative theory because of First English. [00:03:14] Speaker 01: And there was some confusion also because Mr. Lund passed away. [00:03:17] Speaker 01: I had conversations with my friend from the other side. [00:03:20] Speaker 01: And he, the impression I got, and obviously he can clarify when he's on, the impression I got is that he didn't really see any difference between the Quiet Title Act claim, the Tucker Act claim, because we took the position that the estate owns the Tucker Act claim because the estate [00:03:35] Speaker 01: was the owner of the property at the time of the taking. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: The estate eventually transferred all claims, so that's not an issue anymore. [00:03:43] Speaker 01: But I think this was a fundamental different understanding of what the claims were. [00:03:51] Speaker 01: But we do think under First English, it's a temporary taking, and then we have a Quiet Title Act claim about what the government will do going forward. [00:03:59] Speaker 01: And that's why we do think that it should be transferred to the Federal Circuit at this time. [00:04:06] Speaker 01: If you'd like, I can address some of the merits. [00:04:09] Speaker 00: Why don't we hear from the government and maybe we can bring you back. [00:04:13] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:04:13] Speaker 01: All right. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:04:18] Speaker 04: Good morning again. [00:04:18] Speaker 04: Sean Martin for the United States. [00:04:21] Speaker 04: The United States agrees. [00:04:23] Speaker 04: with counsel, this appears to be exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Circuit. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: You know, not just the form, but the substance of the Little Tucker Act claim in the District Court was for money damages for past takings. [00:04:36] Speaker 04: And, you know, in light of this Court's prior decisions, including Brandt, it appears that, you know, there's not jurisdiction in this Court, and then the question is, is the Court inclined to transfer it or dismiss it? [00:04:52] Speaker 04: Obviously at this point, I'm sure the panel's had a chance to look at, you know, the various arguments, statute of limitations, and the merits. [00:04:58] Speaker 04: There's a full summary judgment record. [00:05:01] Speaker 04: It's the panel's determination, but it seems that the case law recognizes, even when a court doesn't have jurisdiction, that if it views a case as a sure loser, then it has discretion to decide to dismiss a case rather than clog up another court's docket or waste resources. [00:05:19] Speaker 00: But would that be a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction? [00:05:21] Speaker 00: It wouldn't be a dismissal on the merits, right? [00:05:24] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: that it would be for lack of jurisdiction, so it wouldn't be with prejudice, so they could still file again. [00:05:34] Speaker 00: I guess I'm not understanding, is there a reason why you think one is better than the other? [00:05:39] Speaker 03: They'd be time barred, right? [00:05:40] Speaker 03: Because if we dismiss the appeal, they're untimely in appealing to the federal circuit, right? [00:05:46] Speaker 03: That may be true. [00:05:47] Speaker 04: That may be true. [00:05:48] Speaker 03: But you don't, other than your view that the appeal lacks merit, you don't have any other [00:05:58] Speaker 03: a theory on which we would deny transfer, do you? [00:06:01] Speaker 04: It's just what we know, the panel's view of the interest of justice under 1631. [00:06:05] Speaker 02: The interest of justice here is that apparently neither side recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal circuit. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: So it seems like it might be in the best interest of justice to send us to the federal circuit and let them figure this out. [00:06:20] Speaker 02: That may be true, Your Honor. [00:06:24] Speaker 00: I don't think we have more questions. [00:06:26] Speaker 00: If you'd like rebuttal time, you're welcome to it, but. [00:06:29] Speaker 01: No, I'll just briefly say, Your Honor, because I didn't cite Amity. [00:06:33] Speaker 01: It's 793 after 991. [00:06:37] Speaker 01: Again, it's a low bar for transfer, and it seems like, I mean, it's been fully briefed. [00:06:41] Speaker 01: So while another court will have to decide it, I don't think there's going to be much to add. [00:06:48] Speaker 01: And it can be resolved in a timely manner and won't prejudice either of the parties either. [00:06:53] Speaker 00: Thank you both sides for the helpful arguments. [00:06:56] Speaker 00: This case is submitted.