Source: https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242662-hypothetical-question/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:49:43+00:00

Document:
I Appreciate the education on this subject. I honestly believed concurrent jurisdiction meant that a claim could be brought in both courts.
I want to be clear on this because there is a subtle distinction. The term concurrent jurisdiction means nothing more than there is no court with exclusive jurisdiction over that claim; instead, one or more courts share jurisdiction to hear it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) the district court and the CFC have concurrent (share) jurisdiction to hear federal tax cases and to hear non tort monetary claims against the United States of no more than $10,000 (which includes contract cases).
With that definition – more than one court having the power to hear the claim — in the federal system the result of concurrent jurisdiction would be that a plaintiff could file the same claim in both courts and have them pending at the same absent some rule that forces the plaintiff to pick just one of the courts. Here, the rule that forces that choice (although a rather clunky one) is 28 U.S.C. § 1500. Congress ought to update this 150 year old law to make it do a better job of what it was intended to do, but until it does we are stuck with some of traps it creates for the unwary.
So the subtle (but important) difference here is that while the actual definition of concurrent jurisdiction does not itself mean that you may bring the same claim in both courts at the same time, the result of concurrent jurisdiction is that you could bring the claim in both courts at once unless you have a rule that puts the plaintiff to a choice as to which court to bring the claim.
let me ask the district court has the authority to entertain both the little Tucker and claims sounding in Tort, that would be the advantage right with the District Court, while CFC there is no limit on monetary damages on the breach it cant be in Tort?
Essentially correct. If you have both Little Tucker (28 § 1346(a)) causes of action and tort claims to bring against the government, the advantage of th district court is that it can hear both claims. And where both claims arise from the same set of operative facts, if you file the case in district court first you cannot then file the § 1346(a) claims in the CFC. If you do, then the CFC has to dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1500.
The CFC can hear contract and other non tort monetary claims against the federal government of any amount, and as to contract cases in particular the CFC has exclusive jurisdiction over those when the amount exceeds $10,000. When you have a tort case against the federal government and also a contract case against the federal exceeding $10,000, you now have a situation where each cause of action is in the exclusive jurisdiction on one court; the contract claim exceeding $10,000 may only be heard by the CFC and the tort claim by the district court. While likely not intended by Congress, when those two causes of action are founded on the same set of operative facts (and thus are the same claim), 28 U.S.C. § 1500 makes that a real problem.
The statute of limitation (SOL) for a particular cause of action is the same regardless of court in which you bring it. For example, the SOL to bring a tax refund case is the same (3 years after the return was filed or 2 years after the tax paid, whichever is later) whether I file it in the district court or the CFC. But certainly the SOL is always a factor to consider in planning strategy for litigation, especially when you need to file causes of action in different courts at different times (e.g. having to wait until litigation is concluded in one court before you may bring a cause of action in the other) — which one you bring first may well be affected by the SOLs for each cause of action. This starts getting into the kind of complex litigation most people never see.
﻿This starts getting into the kind of complex litigation most people never see.
I agree, tell me about complex, in my case just by simply keeping a fundamental record out of my reach, which cause this to be over decade and half old litigation that could have been resolved in one look at the one document. I wouldn't wish this no one. Its waste on time and money, its taken a toll. . . a lot of heartache. . . . .I still believe in justice . . I appreciate the help.

References: § 1346
 § 1500
 § 1346
 § 1346
 § 1500
 § 1500