Opinion ID: 463698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Precedent in this Court

Text: 140 In Professional Managers Ass'n v. United States, 761 F.2d 740 (D.C.Cir.1985), this court held that [t]he Federal Courts Improvement Act clearly grants the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in cases such as this where the district court's jurisdiction was based in whole or in part on the Tucker Act, Id. at 743 (emphasis in original). As a basis for its holding, the court noted that the legislative history ... construes the 'in whole or in part' language quite literally. Id. at 744. It concluded: [b]ased on the Senate Report, it would appear that the regional courts of appeals should transfer cases to the Federal Circuit unless immaterial or frivolous Tucker Act claims have been added to a case for purposes of forum shopping ... Id. Obviously, transfer is equally if not more required where a frivolous additional claim has been added, for purposes of forum shopping, to a non-frivolous Tucker Act claim. 141 In Professional Managers, the court noted that Sec. 1295(a)(2) had been a source of confusion in this court, citing Judge MacKinnon's dissent in Doe v. Department of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1119 (D.C.Cir.1985), and two cases in which this court ordered transfer: Wilson v. Turnage, 755 F.2d 967 (D.C.Cir.1985); and Riggsbee v. Bell, No. 83-2242 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 28, 1985). 142 Other circuits are in accord with the precedent of this court. See Hahn v. United States, 757 F.2d 581, 587 n. 3 (3d Cir.1985); Oliviera v. United States, 734 F.2d 760 (11th Cir.1984); cf. Maier v. Orr, 754 F.2d 973, 982 (Fed.Cir.1985) ([i]n creating this court, Congress assigned it exclusive appellate jurisdiction of district court decisions involving claims for money from the government under Sec. 1346(a)(2)). 143 I cannot find in the majority opinion an adequate effort to justify its departure from this court's precedent.