Cole v. United States Attorney General et al, No. 6:2010cv00256 - Document 86 (W.D. Mo. 2011)

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

Download PDF
Cole v. United States Attorney General et al Doc. 86 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, Dockets.Justia.com 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.