NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1995

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-01793-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.

______________________ 

Decided: February 23, 2024

______________________ 

TERESA NICOLE TAYLOR, Taft Stettinius & Hollister 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 NATHANAEL YALE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, FRANKLIN 

E. WHITE, JR. 

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2024
2 ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Askan Holdings, LTD. (“Askan”), brought suit against 

the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims 

Court”), alleging a Fifth Amendment taking. The Claims 

Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on four 

grounds. Because we agree that collateral estoppel precludes Askan from bringing these claims and that, in any 

event, 28 U.S.C. § 1500 deprives the Claims Court of subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm. We do not reach the 

Claims Court’s other grounds for dismissal.1

BACKGROUND

Askan is a Seychelles-registered aircraft holding company which is wholly owned by Transylvania International 

Airlines SRL (“TIA”). Askan was created solely to purchase 

an Airbus A320 and provide the aircraft to TIA so TIA 

could maintain the statutorily required number of commercial flights to operate a commercial airline in Europe. 

Askan entered into an agreement with JetPro International, LLC (“JetPro”), an American company, to purchase 

an Airbus A320. On January 4, 2016, Askan made a down 

payment in the amount of $923,000. But the transaction 

was never completed. JetPro cancelled the transaction, 

and Askan requested the return of its down payment. 

JetPro attempted to return the down payment, but the return was blocked by the Office of Foreign Assets Control 

(“OFAC”) when the funds were routed through Deutsche 

Bank Americas in New York City, New York. 

Askan petitioned OFAC to unblock the funds several 

times and was denied each time. On June 2, 2020, Askan 

filed for a declaratory and injunctive relief in the United 

1 The other grounds were that Askan lacked sufficient contacts with the United States to establish standing 

and that the case is moot because Askan received the funds 

at issue, with interest.

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2024
ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US 3

States District Court for the District of Columbia. On November 9, 2020, Askan amended its complaint in the district court after learning that, despite receiving a license 

for its funds from OFAC, the money had escheated to the 

State of New York Office of Comptroller under New York’s 

laws governing abandoned property. In March 2021, 

Askan received its blocked funds plus interest. 

During the pendency of the district court litigation, on 

December 16, 2020, Askan also filed its first complaint in 

the Claims Court (Askan I), alleging that the government’s 

actions constituted a Fifth Amendment taking. Askan 

Holdings, Ltd. v. United States, 155 Fed. Cl. 216 (2021) 

(“Askan I”); Appellant Br. 10. According to Askan, “[d]ue 

to a clerical error, the wrong complaint was filed,” Appellant’s Br. 10, in that the complaint alleged a takings claim 

but mistakenly cited the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment as the source of the takings liability.2 The 

Claims Court in Askan I dismissed the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1500 

“prevents redundant litigation by barring this court from 

exercising jurisdiction over a claim when a plaintiff has a 

case pending in another court ‘for and in respect to’ the 

same claim.” Askan I, 155 Fed. Cl. at 225. The Claims 

Court concluded “[w]hen the plaintiff filed its original complaint in this court, the plaintiff had claims based on the 

same operative facts pending in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia.” Id. 

2 Askan filed an amended complaint in Askan I to 

address the clerical error, but, as the Claims Court held, 

the amended complaint is not relevant to the Section 1500 

analysis. Askan I, 155 Fed. Cl. at 221 (“The Court must 

consider § 1500’s jurisdictional bar only in relation to the 

plaintiff’s original complaint in this court, not its amended 

complaint.”); see Res. Invs., Inc. v. United States, 785 F.3d 

660, 669 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 02/23/2024
4 ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US

On September 2, 2021, while the district court case was 

still pending,3 Askan filed a second complaint in the Claims 

Court (Askan II), alleging a Fifth Amendment takings 

claim, correcting the alleged clerical error from the previous case. Askan deleted references to the Due Process 

Clause and substituted references to the Fifth Amendment 

takings clause. Despite this change, the Claims Court 

found “the factual allegations concerning the government’s 

conduct in Askan I and the instant case are the same[.]” 

Askan Holdings, Ltd. v. United States, No. 21-1793C, 2022 

WL 1512730, at *4 (Fed. Cl. May 12, 2022) (“Askan II”). 

The Claims Court dismissed the complaint, finding that issue preclusion barred the second complaint (Askan II) because the second complaint was virtually identical to the 

first complaint (Askan I), and that Section 1500 applied regardless of collateral estoppel. Id. at *5, *7. 

Askan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

DISCUSSION

I 

“We review the Claims Court’s decision to dismiss a 

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Cent. 

Pines Land Co. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012).

Section 1500 provides that “[t]he United States Court 

of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction for 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 

3 On September 23, 2021, the district court case was 

dismissed as moot. Askan Holdings, Ltd. v. U. S. Dep’t of 

the Treasury, Off. of Foreign Assets Control, No. CV 20-

1458 (RJL), 2021 WL 4318114, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 

2021).

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 02/23/2024
ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US 5

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Two lawsuits are “for or 

in respect to the same claim when they are based on substantially the same operative facts.” United States v. 

Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 315 (2011). 

When determining whether the claims are based on 

substantially the same operative facts, the Supreme Court 

has described two tests based on the principles of res judicata that existed in 1868, the year Section 1500’s predecessor statute was enacted: the “act or contract test” and the 

“evidence test.” Tohono, 563 U.S. at 315–16; see also 

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 

1168–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining the two tests). The 

“act or contract” test distinguishes “between demands or 

rights of action which are single and entire, and those 

which are several and distinct” on the basis that “the former immediately arise out of one and the same act or contract, and the latter out of different acts or contracts.” Res. 

Invs., 785 F.3d at 666–67 (quoting Tohono, 563 U.S. at 

316). 

“Under the second test, the evidence test, two suits involve the same claim if: ‘the same evidence support[s] and 

establish[es] both the present and the former cause of action[.]’” Trusted Integration, 659 F.3d at 1169 (quoting 

Tohono, 563 U.S. at 316). If either test is satisfied, Section 

1500 deprives the Claims Court of jurisdiction. See id. at 

1170 n.5 (“If two suits are determined to arise from the 

same claim under either of these res judicata tests, however, application of the bar of § 1500 is likely compelled.”).

The doctrine of collateral estoppel additionally bars a 

plaintiff from relitigating the same issue. Following a valid 

and final judgment, “the judgment generally is conclusive 

as to the issues raised in the subsequent action if those issues were actually litigated and determined in the prior action and if their determination was essential to the 

judgment.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 17 

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 02/23/2024
6 ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US

(1982); see also New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 

748–49 (2001). 

A party invoking collateral estoppel must show: 

(1) the issue is identical to the one decided in the 

first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in 

the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and 

(4) [the party against whom collateral estoppel is 

being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to 

litigate the issue in the first action. 

Finjan LLC v. SonicWall, Inc., 84 F.4th 963, 969 (Fed. 

Cir. 2023) (quoting Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, 

Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (alteration in 

original)). 

II 

We hold that the Claims Court correctly found that relitigation of the issue in this case—whether Section 1500 

deprives the Claims Court of jurisdiction over the second 

Claims Court complaint—was barred by collateral estoppel. Each element of the collateral estoppel analysis is satisfied. The issue was decided in the first case, the issue 

was actually litigated, the issue was essential to the judgment, and Askan had full and fair opportunity to litigate 

the issue in the first action. Askan’s sole argument for each 

element is that the complaint in Askan I and this case are 

not the same because the first cites the Due Process Clause

whereas the second cites the Fifth Amendment Takings

Clause. This is not a sufficient difference to avoid the preclusive effect of the prior judgment because the complaints

in both cases are virtually identical—and, in several 

places, verbatim. 

Because each requirement is met, we hold that this suit 

is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. 

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 02/23/2024
ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US 7

Even if collateral estoppel did not preclude Askan’s 

claims, Section 1500 presents an independent bar to the 

Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Askan filed its second complaint on September 2, 2021, at which time Askan’s complaint was still pending at the district court. While the 

relief sought is different, that is not determinative. See 

Res. Invs., 785 F.3d at 666; Ministerio Roca Solida v. 

United States, 778 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[I]t is 

irrelevant whether the relief sought in the two co-pending 

suits is the same or different . . . .”). The same government 

conduct underlies each complaint, and the same evidence 

would be necessary to support Askan’s claims. Whether 

analyzed under the “act or contract” or “evidence” test, the 

result is the same. The acts—“OFAC’s block of the transaction returning Askan’s down payment; OFAC’s delay in 

authorizing the return of the funds; and OFAC’s issuance 

of a license to the Comptroller that resulted in the funds 

escheating to the State of New York”—are the same acts 

that were at issue in the district court litigation. Askan 

Holdings, Ltd., 2022 WL 1512730, at *6. Similarly, the 

same evidence would “support[] and establish[]” Askan’s

claims, whether that be a claim for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or a takings claim. Trusted Integration, 659 

F.3d at 1169 (quoting Tohono, 563 U.S. at 316). 

Because we hold that Askan’s claims are barred under 

the doctrine of collateral estoppel and that Section 1500 deprives the Claims Court of jurisdiction in this case, we do 

not reach the other issues.

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1995 Document: 53 Page: 7 Filed: 02/23/2024