Late yesterday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case and four nonprecedential orders dismissing or summarily affirming dismissals of cases. Here are the introductions to the opinions and orders.
Spence v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Mrs. Betty Spence appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying an earlier effective date for her deceased husband’s service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD) disability compensation award. Spence v. McDonough, No. 18-4761, 2021 WL 1204116 at *3 (Vet. App. Mar. 31, 2021) (Veterans Court Decision). Because the Veterans Court failed to address an argument raised by Mrs. Spence, we vacate and remand.
3G Licensing, S.A. v. Honeywell International Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH moves to modify the caption to reflect the acquisition of the relevant business by Telit Cinterion Deutschland GmbH, and to withdraw Meredith Martin Addy, Robert P. Hart, and Gregory Gulliver and substitute Guy Yonay and Kyle Auteri as counsel for Telit Cinterion. The parties also file a joint stipulation for the appellant’s voluntary dismissal of this appeal.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Thales’ motions are granted. The official caption is reflected above.
(2) This appeal is dismissed.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs
Hobson v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential Order)
Faye R. Hobson has filed a petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s final October 4, 2022, decision. In response to this court’s February 16, 2023, order to show cause, the Department of Defense urges dismissal as untimely. Faye R. Hobson opposes dismissal.
* * *
Because Ms. Hobson’s petition was filed outside the statutory deadline, we dismiss.
Etienne v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
After the filing of Dineen Cherylann Etienne’s opening brief, the United States moves to summarily affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing Ms. Etienne’s complaint. For the following reasons, we grant the motion.
Patel v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)
Raj K. Patel appeals from the United States Court of Federal Claims’ August 12, 2022, judgment dismissing his complaint. In response to the court’s March 2, 2023, show cause order, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Mr. Patel “move[s] . . . to allow the appeal,” ECF No. 13 at 1, and suggests that this case may be consolidated with Appeal No. 2023-1325.
* * *
In this case, it is undisputed that Mr. Patel’s notice of appeal was filed 137 days after final judgment. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Patel’s untimely appeal.