is necessary to the resolution of this case, I note that even if the Does’ claims could somehow overcome the Totten bar (which they cannot), the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), requires the Does to bring this case in the Court of Federal Claims. The Tucker Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims for suits against the United States whenever an action seeks money damages or arises from an express or implied contract. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); Demontiney v. United States ex rel. Dept. of Interior, 255 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir.2001). This jurisdictional limitation extends to constitutional claims against the United States that are dependent on rights provided under a government contract. Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641, 647 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); North Star Alaska v. United States, 14 F.3d
holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal