T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RO BI N R. W I LSO N - SA U LS, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M I CH ELLE D . CU RTI S; LERO Y B. HA I NS ; R ON AL D R . HA R T L I NG ; D A V ID E . H O L L ID A Y , L t c. ; B O N N IE AN N L AZ OR ; UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 36037 D. C . No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 1 6 3 - AC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon J ohn V . A c os t a , M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r11, 2009 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED DE C 21 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P l ai nt i ff R ob i n R . W i l son-S aul s app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of her c o mp l a i n t . W e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l yhe l d tha ti tdi d notha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove rW i l s onS aul s ’ s a c t i on unde rthe F e de r a l T ortC l a i m s A c t( F T C A ) . T he D e pa rtm e ntof L ab o r h ad al read y aw ard ed co m p en sat i o n u n d er th e F ed eral E m p l o yees’ Co mp e n s a t i o n A c t( FECA ) f o rc l a i ms a r i s i n g f

r o m th e s a me f

a c t s . W h e n FECA ap p lie s , it is a n e x c lu s iv e r e m e d y , se e M oe v. U ni ted States , 326 F . 3d 1065, 1068 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dad e te rm in a tio n b yth e S e c r e ta ryo f L ab o rth a t F E C A ap p lie s is g e n e r a llyu n r e v ie w ab le b yth e c o u rts , se e 5 U .S .C . § 8 1 2 8 ( b ) ; Staa cke v . U . S. Sec’ y of L abor , 8 4 1 F .2 d2 7 8 , 2 8 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . W e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d“tw o n a rr o w e x c e p tio n s ” to F E C A ’s “ab s o lu te j uri sdi ct i on al bar” : “ [c ] ou rt s r et ai n j uri sdi ct i on t o con si der c on st i tut i on al chal l enges or c l ai m s f

or vi ol at i on of a c l ear s t atut ory m andat e or prohi bi t i on . ” M arkham v. U

ni ted States , 4 3 4 F .3 d1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W ils o n - S au ls do es no tar gu e thatei ther e xcept i on appl i es . S he cont ends she di d n otw ai ve her t ortc l a i m bya c c e pt i ng be ne f i t s unde rF E C A be c aus e s he di d noti ni t i a l l yappl yf or F E C A be ne f

i t s ; i ns t e a d, he re m pl oy e rappl i e d on he rbe ha l f . B utF E C A doe s not p r o v id e f o ra n e le c tio n o f

r e m e d ie s . I f

W ils o n - S au ls h a db r o u g h t h e rto rt c la im in ad is tr ic t c o u rt b e f

o r e ap p ly in g f

o rF E C A b e n e f

its , th e c o u rt w o u ldh a v e h a dto3

di s m i s s the a c t i on f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on be c aus e s he ha d a c o lo r ab le c la im u n d e rF E C A . Se e Moe , 326 F . 3d a t1068. M or e ove r , W i l s onS au l s d id l at ersubm i ta c l ai m for c om pensat i on un der F E C A , for w hi ch she w as aw ar d ed b en ef

it s. T h u s, th e d istrict co u rt w as re q u ired to d ism iss W il so n -S au ls’s F T C A c l a i m f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. W i l son-S aul s c on t ends thatdi sm i ss al of her F T C A cl ai m vi ol at ed subst ant i ve du e proces s bec ause i tdepri ved h erof a pot ent i al l y s ub st ant i al r e c o v e ry . T h a t a r g u m e n t f a ils , a s W ils o n - S au ls d idn o t h a v e av e s te dp r o p e rty r ig h t in h e rF T C A c la im . “W e h a v e s q u a r e lyh e ldth a t a lth o u g h ac au s e o f a c tio n is a ‘ sp eci es o f p ro p erty, a p arty’ s p ro p erty ri g h ti n an y cau se o f act i o n d o es n o tv est u n til af in a l u n r e v ie w a b le j ud gm enti s obt ai ned. ’ ” Ly o n v . Ag u s ta S. P. A. , 252 F . 3d 1078, 1086 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng G r im es yv . H u ff , 8 7 6 F .2 d7 3 8 , 7 4 3 - 4 4 ( 9 th C i r. 19 89 )) . F i na l l y , W i l s on- S aul s ’ s a r gum e nttha tF E C A vi ol a t e s a rt i c l e I , s e c t i on 10, of th e O r e g o n C o n s titu tio n is m e r itle s s . I f th e O r e g o n C o n s titu tio n a c tu a lly co n fl i ct ed w i th F E C A , F E C A w o u l dp rev ai l b y o p erat i o n o f th e S u p rem acy C l au se o f th e U .S . C o n s titu tio n . Se e Y oung v . C olom a-A gar an , 340 F . 3d 1053, 1055- 57 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). AF F I R ME D.