in § 3662. To the contrary, the PAEA added specific, additional types of claims to the jurisdictional provision of § 3662, including claims arising under § 404a. The fact that § 409 of the PAEA generally grants jurisdiction over actions brought against USPS does not change this conclusion. Indeed, § 409 specifically states that its grant of jurisdiction to the district courts does not apply to exceptions “otherwise provided in this title.” 39 U.S.C. § 409(a). Section 3662, with its grant of jurisdiction to the PRC over claims arising under § 404a, provides such an exception. Thus, the district court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims arising under § 404a. See Anselma Crossing, L.P. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 637 F.3d 238, 246 (3d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). In granting USPS’s motion to dismiss, the
holding that a laterenacted and specific statutory provision bars district court jurisdiction for contract claims against usps despite  409s general grant of jurisdiction holding that district court did not have jurisdiction over any claims that could not exist independently of a contract holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract holding that igras specific grant of federal jurisdiction for certain actions indicates congress intended to limit federal jurisdiction to those instances holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis