Court Opinion

ID: 9946172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:02:18.265569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:36.485392
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1995    Document: 53    Page: 1   Filed: 02/23/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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, Washing-
 ton, 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: 2   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 pre-
 cludes Askan from bringing these claims and that, in any
 event, 28 U.S.C. § 1500 deprives the Claims Court of sub-
 ject 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 com-
 pany 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 commer-
 cial flights to operate a commercial airline in Europe.
 Askan entered into an agreement with JetPro Interna-
 tional, 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 re-
 turn 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 suffi-
 cient 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: 3    Filed: 02/23/2024

 ASKAN HOLDINGS, LTD. v. US                                 3

 States District Court for the District of Columbia. On No-
 vember 9, 2020, Askan amended its complaint in the dis-
 trict 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,” Appel-
 lant’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 com-
 plaint 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: 4    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 previ-
 ous 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 is-
 sue preclusion barred the second complaint (Askan II) be-
 cause the second complaint was virtually identical to the
 first complaint (Askan I), and that Section 1500 applied re-
 gardless 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: 5    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 sub-
 stantially 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 judi-
 cata that existed in 1868, the year Section 1500’s predeces-
 sor 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 for-
 mer immediately arise out of one and the same act or con-
 tract, 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 in-
 volve the same claim if: ‘the same evidence support[s] and
 establish[es] both the present and the former cause of ac-
 tion[.]’” 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, how-
 ever, 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 is-
 sues were actually litigated and determined in the prior ac-
 tion and if their determination was essential to the
 judgment.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 17
Case: 22-1995    Document: 53      Page: 6    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 es-
     sential 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 re-
 litigation 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 estop-
 pel. Each element of the collateral estoppel analysis is sat-
 isfied. The issue was decided in the first case, the issue
 was actually litigated, the issue was essential to the judg-
 ment, 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 pre-
 clusive 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: 7    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 com-
 plaint on September 2, 2021, at which time Askan’s com-
 plaint 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 trans-
 action 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, in-
 junctive 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 de-
 prives the Claims Court of jurisdiction in this case, we do
 not reach the other issues.
                        AFFIRMED