Late yesterday and this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board; two motions to dismiss appeals; two summary affirmances; and an erratum. Here is text from the opinion and orders and links to the summary affirmances and erratum.
Neese v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Ashley Neese, an attorney represented by counsel throughout the present matter, filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512, 7701 challenging her removal from, and seeking reinstatement to, her position as a federal employee. Because the appeal appeared to have been filed after the applicable Board deadline for appealing agency actions, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22, the administrative judge assigned to the matter issued an order to show cause, by a specified date, why the appeal should not be dismissed because of untimeliness. SAppx. 45. Nine days after the response deadline had passed, with no response from Ms. Neese, the administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the removal appeal as untimely. Neese v. Dep’t of Justice, No. DC-0752- 21-0420-I-1, 2021 WL 2414242 (M.S.P.B. June 8, 2021).
. . .
The sole argument Ms. Neese presents in her opening brief is that good cause existed for her failure to timely respond to the show cause order. But that is not a challenge to a ruling made by the Board, because Ms. Neese did not ask the Board (either the full Board or the administrative judge) to decide that she had good cause for missing the deadline for responding to the show-cause order, and no such decision was made by the Board (either the full Board or the administrative judge).
Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC v. Companycam, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Rothschild Digital Confirmation, LLC moves unopposed to dismiss the above-captioned appeal pursuant to the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted.
Saber Interactive Inc. v. Oovee Ltd. (Nonprecedential Order)
Appellant moves to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with prejudice and that “each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.” In response, appellee “does not contest the withdrawal of the appeal and resultant cancellation of oral argument” but argues that the dismissal should be conditioned on an award of fees for the appeal due to appellant’s “delay tactics” and “vexatious litigation practice.”
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The court has sua sponte determined that the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is not appropriate. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice, and the oral argument scheduled for May 4, 2022, is cancelled.