Cole v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 86

ORDER and OPINION denying Defendants' request to dismiss Count I. Signed on 08/22/2011 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Will-Fees, Eva)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEANNA COLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ERIC HOLDER, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-0256-CV-W-ODS

ORDER AND OPINION DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO DISMISS COUNT I
On June 30, 2011, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
and directed additional briefing on Defendants’ contention that the Court lacked
jurisdiction over Count I. The Court now denies Defendants’ suggestion that jurisdiction
is lacking.
Count I asserts an Equal Pay Act claim and relies on the Little Tucker Act for this
Court’s jurisdiction. As noted in the Court’s September 22, 2010, Order, the Court’s
Jurisdiction over Count I depends on the amount sought by Plaintiff. The Court deferred
consideration of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I until the Record could be
developed further. Defendants re-asserted the issue, contending only the Court of
Claims has jurisdiction. Plaintiff responds by pointing out that she has limited her
recovery to no more than $10,000 on Count I, so even if the jury awards more than that
amount her recovery will not exceed that specified in the Little Tucker Act. Numerous
cases hold that a limitation of this sort will preserve jurisdiction under the Little Tucker
Act, and Defendants offer no reason not to follow those cases. E.g., Smith v. Orr, 855
F.2d 1544, 1552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Professional Managers’ Ass’n v. United States,
761 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Johnson v. United States, 208 F.R.D. 148, 158 (W.D.
Tex. 2001).1
1

Defendants contend they will be prejudiced if the Equal Pay Act claim is allowed
to proceed in the absence of proper jurisdiction. This argument is a non sequitur,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DATE: August 22, 2011

because prejudice is not a factor to be considered in determining whether jurisdiction
exists: if jurisdiction is lacking, the claim should be dismissed regardless of prejudice,
and if jurisdiction is present then the claim cannot be dismissed. To the extent
Defendants contend the erroneous submission of the Equal Pay Act Claim will prejudice
them with respect to the Title VII claim, the Court disagrees: the Court does not believe
there will be any evidence admitted with respect to the Equal Pay Act claim that will not
also be admissible with respect to the Title VII claim.
2