class-action complaint, filed under RCFC 23 and section 2501 in the Court of Federal Claims, cannot provide jurisdiction over the identical putative class members. In this respect, we would be creating a regime in which the class action process in the Court of Federal Claims was not just different from the class action process in federal district court (opt-in versus opt-out), but was also so cumbersome and unwieldy in its operation that, unlike the process in district court, it frustrated the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits. Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests that such a result, i.e., one in which jurisdictional differences dictate different outcomes in the law, is not favored. See, e.g., Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 165, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999) (<HOLDING>); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388,
holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that the factual findings of federal agencies functioning in an appropriately judicial capacity enjoy preclusive effect in federal courts holding that the federal circuit should not accord less deference to factual findings of the patent and trademark office than courts accord to the findings of other agencies under the administrative procedure act holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts