Court Opinion

ID: 9403545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:43.990762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.859138
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1265   Document: 13     Page: 1   Filed: 06/09/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 KATHLYN M. STEIN,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

    DUANE B. GILL, DIRECTOR, VA CENTRAL
   WESTERN MA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, IN HIS
            OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
               Defendant-Appellee
             ______________________

                       2023-1265
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Massachusetts in No. 3:18-cv-30201-MGM,
 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: June 9, 2023
                 ______________________

    KATHLYN M. STEIN, Shutesbury, MA, pro se.

     STEVEN MICHAEL MAGER, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
 sented by REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________
Case: 23-1265     Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 06/09/2023

 2                                                STEIN   v. GILL

     Before PROST, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Kathlyn M. Stein appeals from an order of the U.S. Dis-
 trict Court for the District of Massachusetts transferring
 her Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim to the U.S. Court of Fed-
 eral Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
                               I
     In December 2018, Ms. Stein filed an EPA claim
 against her employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs
 (“VA”), 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Mas-
 sachusetts. She alleged that the government violated the
 EPA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), by paying her less than male em-
 ployees doing equal work, and she sought over $10,000 in
 damages.
     The government moved to dismiss Ms. Stein’s EPA
 claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for
 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 2 It argued that, per the
 Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), the Court of Federal
 Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over EPA money-dam-
 ages claims against the government for over $10,000. 3 The

     1    Although Ms. Stein’s complaint named (as relevant
 here) the then Director of the VA Central Western Massa-
 chusetts Health Care System in his official capacity as the
 “Defendant Employer,” because any distinction is immate-
 rial to our discussion, we refer to the defendant-employer
 simply as the VA.
     2    Subsequent references to jurisdiction should be un-
 derstood as referring to subject-matter jurisdiction.
     3    The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), is some-
 times called the Big Tucker Act. It has a companion, the
 Little Tucker Act, which (as relevant here) gives district
Case: 23-1265      Document: 13    Page: 3    Filed: 06/09/2023

 STEIN   v. GILL                                            3

 government relied on Abbey v. United States, 745 F.3d 1363
 (Fed. Cir. 2014), to support this argument.
     In Abbey, government employees sued the government
 in the Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages for
 an alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
 1938 (“FLSA”), of which the EPA is a part. On appeal to
 this court, the government argued that the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims lacked jurisdiction. Despite our having long
 held that the Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims
 jurisdiction over FLSA money-damages claims against the
 government (and exclusive jurisdiction when the claim ex-
 ceeds $10,000), it argued that an intervening Supreme
 Court case, United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), re-
 quired concluding that the Tucker Act no longer supplies
 such jurisdiction. See Abbey, 745 F.3d at 1368–69. The
 Abbey court disagreed; it held that, Bormes notwithstand-
 ing, jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims remains
 proper under the Tucker Act. Abbey, 745 F.3d at 1368–72.
 The government did not seek rehearing in Abbey.
     In Ms. Stein’s case, the Massachusetts district court re-
 lied on Abbey to conclude that it lacked jurisdiction over
 her EPA claim. Stein v. McMahon, No. 18-30201, 2020 WL
 6074157, at *1–2 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2020). Instead of dis-
 missing the claim, the district court gave Ms. Stein the op-
 portunity to request that it be transferred to the Court of
 Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which allows a
 court that lacks jurisdiction to transfer a claim to one that
 has it. 4 When Ms. Stein failed to request a transfer, the

 courts the same jurisdiction that the Tucker Act gives the
 Court of Federal Claims, but only over claims not exceeding
 $10,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Unless otherwise speci-
 fied, subsequent references to the Tucker Act contemplate
 both the Big and Little versions.
     4   Although § 1631 references transfer of a “civil ac-
 tion,” we have held that it authorizes transfer of individual
Case: 23-1265     Document: 13      Page: 4   Filed: 06/09/2023

 4                                                STEIN   v. GILL

 court dismissed the EPA claim for lack of jurisdiction.
 Ms. Stein then appealed to the First Circuit, maintaining
 that the district court had jurisdiction all along.
                               II
     While Ms. Stein’s appeal was pending before the First
 Circuit, an unrelated appeal brought by Dr. Rebecca Metz-
 inger was pending before this court. Her case had much in
 common with Ms. Stein’s.
      Like Ms. Stein, Dr. Metzinger had filed an EPA claim
 for over $10,000 against the VA in district court. And, as
 in Ms. Stein’s case, the government moved—successfully,
 and relying on Abbey—to have the district court declare it-
 self without jurisdiction. See Metzinger v. U.S. Dep’t of Vet-
 erans Affs., No. 19-10614, 2020 WL 13562907, at *2–3 (E.D.
 La. May 4, 2020). The district court transferred the claim
 to the Court of Federal Claims under § 1631, id. at *4, and
 Dr. Metzinger appealed to this court, maintaining that the
 district court shouldn’t have transferred because it had ju-
 risdiction all along.
      Unlike in Ms. Stein’s appeal, however, the government
 in Dr. Metzinger’s appeal changed its position before its
 brief came due. It now agreed that the district court had
 jurisdiction all along, making the § 1631 transfer to the
 Court of Federal Claims improper. Resp. Br. for Def.-Ap-
 pellees at 4–5, Metzinger v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
 No. 20-1906 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2020). It also said that Abbey
 was wrongly decided—that, in light of Bormes, the Court of
 Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over FLSA or EPA claims
 against the government. Id. at 7, 10–13. Yet, in its brief
 filed just two months later in Ms. Stein’s appeal to the First
 Circuit, the government stuck to its original position and
 urged the First Circuit to “follow the reasoning of Abbey,

 claims as well. United States v. County of Cook, 170 F.3d
 1084, 1087–89 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Case: 23-1265      Document: 13    Page: 5    Filed: 06/09/2023

 STEIN   v. GILL                                             5

 and every other court to consider this question, and hold
 that the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction
 over [EPA] claims against the federal government in excess
 of $10,000.” Br. for Defs.-Appellees at 18, Stein v. Collins,
 No. 20-1906 (1st Cir. Feb. 8, 2021).
     In June 2021, during oral argument in Dr. Metzinger’s
 appeal, we notified government counsel that the govern-
 ment was taking inconsistent positions as between
 Dr. Metzinger’s and Ms. Stein’s appeals. 5 After that reve-
 lation, the government changed its position in Ms. Stein’s
 appeal to align with the one taken in Dr. Metzinger’s ap-
 peal, and it notified the First Circuit accordingly. Appel-
 lees’ Resp. to Appellant’s Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 1–2, 8,
 Stein v. Collins, No. 20-1906 (1st Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). The
 First Circuit then vacated the Massachusetts district
 court’s dismissal and remanded, observing that the district
 court “may determine in the first instance whether there is
 subject-matter jurisdiction to hear [Ms.] Stein’s official-ca-
 pacity EPA claim and may consider the [g]overnment’s up-
 dated position on the issue when doing so.” Judgment at 2,
 Stein v. Collins, No. 20-1906 (1st Cir. Oct. 12, 2021).
     In December 2021, we affirmed the district court’s
 § 1631 transfer of Dr. Metzinger’s EPA claim to the Court
 of Federal Claims. Metzinger v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
 20 F.4th 778 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We noted that a § 1631
 transfer requires two relevant things: the transferor court
 (district court) must lack jurisdiction, and the transferee
 court (Court of Federal Claims) must have it. As to
 whether the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction, we
 noted that Abbey unquestionably held that it did. We
 acknowledged the government’s argument that Abbey was
 wrongly decided, but we explained that the argument was

     5    Oral Arg. at 15:51–17:00, No. 20-1906,
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20
 -1906_06102021.mp3.
Case: 23-1265     Document: 13      Page: 6   Filed: 06/09/2023

 6                                                STEIN   v. GILL

 misplaced: panels are bound by prior panel decisions of this
 court unless and until overturned en banc. Id. at 781. As
 to whether the district court lacked jurisdiction, that issue
 was not squarely presented in Abbey. The plaintiffs there
 had filed their complaint in the Court of Federal Claims, so
 the issue was simply whether that court had jurisdiction.
 Nevertheless, we concluded in Metzinger that, under Ab-
 bey’s reasoning, the Tucker Act provides the only basis for
 jurisdiction over EPA money-damages claims against the
 government—meaning that district courts lack jurisdiction
 over such claims exceeding $10,000. Id. at 784; see also
 supra note 3. We therefore affirmed the transfer. The gov-
 ernment did not seek rehearing in Metzinger.
                              III
     After the First Circuit’s remand to the Massachusetts
 district court in Ms. Stein’s case, the government again
 moved to dismiss her EPA claim—not for jurisdictional rea-
 sons this time, but for failure to state a claim under Federal
 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Ms. Stein opposed.
      In July 2022, the district court again concluded that it
 lacked jurisdiction over Ms. Stein’s EPA claim. Although
 neither party’s brief discussed the jurisdictional issue, the
 district court correctly observed that it had an independent
 duty to confirm for itself its own jurisdiction. See Stein v.
 Gill, No. 18-30201, 2022 WL 2980680, at *1–2 (D. Mass.
 July 1, 2022). In discharging that duty, the district court
 again relied on Abbey (and now Metzinger as well) to sup-
 port its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction. Id. The dis-
 trict court stated in the alternative that, even if it had
 jurisdiction, it would dismiss the claim as inadequately
 pleaded under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at *2.
     The district court initially dismissed the claim for lack
 of jurisdiction. But, after receiving and construing a re-
 quest from Ms. Stein, it ordered the claim transferred in-
 stead to the Court of Federal Claims under § 1631.
Case: 23-1265      Document: 13    Page: 7    Filed: 06/09/2023

 STEIN   v. GILL                                             7

     Ms. Stein initially appealed the district court’s transfer
 order to the First Circuit. See Appx. 63. 6 The First Circuit,
 however, noted that this court has exclusive jurisdiction
 over this appeal from an interlocutory § 1631 transfer or-
 der to the Court of Federal Claims. Appx. 63 (citing
 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(A)); see also Appx. 65–66. It there-
 fore transferred Ms. Stein’s appeal to this court under
 § 1631. Appx. 65–66.
     We have exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal from
 the district court’s transfer order.          28 U.S.C.
 § 1292(d)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
     Both parties challenge the jurisdictional conclusions
 underpinning the district court’s transfer order. E.g., Ap-
 pellant’s Informal Br. 2; Appellee’s Br. 8–9. We review
 these conclusions de novo. Metzinger, 20 F.4th at 780–81.
      The parties argue that, in light of the Supreme Court’s
 decision in Bormes, the district court has jurisdiction over
 Ms. Stein’s EPA claim and the Court of Federal Claims
 does not. But our precedent in Abbey and Metzinger plainly
 forecloses these arguments. The parties do not suggest
 otherwise. Instead, they (particularly the government)
 dedicate many pages of briefing to explaining why they
 think Abbey and Metzinger were wrongly decided. E.g., Ap-
 pellee’s Br. 15–27. Nowhere among the parties’ briefing,
 however, do they acknowledge that we, as a panel, “are
 bound by prior panel decisions of this court unless and un-
 til overturned en banc.” Metzinger, 20 F.4th at 781 (citing
 Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 765 (Fed. Cir.
 1988)). Because these decisions bind us, we must reject the
 parties’ challenges to the jurisdictional conclusions under-
 pinning the district court’s transfer order. And, having

     6  “Appx.” refers to the appendix included with the
 government’s brief.
Case: 23-1265     Document: 13       Page: 8   Filed: 06/09/2023

 8                                                STEIN   v. GILL

 been presented no other valid reason to disturb that order,
 we affirm it.
      The parties also address the implications of the district
 court’s alternative conclusion that, if it had jurisdiction, it
 would dismiss the EPA claim under Rule 12(b)(6) as being
 inadequately pleaded. Ms. Stein asks us to vacate this as-
 pect of the district court’s decision if we conclude that the
 district court lacked jurisdiction. See Appellant’s Informal
 Br. 3. Setting aside our authority to do so, we deem such
 action unnecessary. As the government notes, this aspect
 of the district court’s decision “would have no legal effect
 and could not bind the Court of Federal Claims in any
 transferred matter” if we conclude—as we have—that the
 district court lacked jurisdiction. Appellee’s Br. 29 (cleaned
 up).
                         CONCLUSION
      We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm.
                         AFFIRMED
                             COSTS
 No costs.