Opinion ID: 511014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facts Pleaded

Text: 8 In the Robinson case, Johns-Manville alleges as facts that the United States (1) compelled Johns-Manville to enter the supply contracts, (2) controlled the products by requiring compliance with the government's specifications, (3) controlled the conditions of use of the products, (4) controlled access to the shipyards, (5) did not enforce its established safety standards, (6) knew of the health risks caused by lack of enforcement of the safety standards, (7) knew or should have known of the potential liability to Johns-Manville caused by the failure of the United States to enforce safety standards, and (8) Robinson was exposed to excessive concentrations of asbestos. 9 The factual allegations in the Claims Court cases overlap the factual allegations in the Robinson case and the third-party complaints. They all allege (1) the United States compelled compliance with supply contracts and with the Navy's specifications, (2) the United States had control of the shipyard working conditions, and (3) the United States established safety standards in the shipyards but did not follow them. Issues on Appeal Whether the trial court erred in holding: 10 1. a prior-filed district court suit presents the same claim for or in respect to an action filed in the Claims Court by the same plaintiff where each action is based on the same operative facts but different theories of relief. 11 2. a prior-filed, stayed suit is pending for purposes of barring jurisdiction in the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500.