Late Friday, the Federal circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing a case without prejudice. This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The lone precedential opinion comes in an employment case on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. The lone nonprecedential opinion comes in a veterans case on appeal from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Of the nonprecedential orders, one denies a petition, one dismisses an appeal, and one remands an appeal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the orders denying the petition and dismissing the appeal and a link to the order remanding the case.
Doe No. 1 v. United States (Precedential)
The government appeals an order from the United States Court of Federal Claims denying its motion for summary judgment and holding the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation 5 C.F.R. § 551.423(a)(3) invalid. We vacate and remand.
Berry v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Lamar Berry appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). Berry v. McDonough, No. 24-2983, 2024 WL 4157840, at *2 (Vet. App. Sept. 12, 2024) (“Dismissal Order”). We affirm.
AlexSam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. (Nonprecedential Order)
Blackhawk Network, Inc. and Simon Property Group, L.P. move to deactivate or stay AlexSam, Inc.’s appeal, Appeal No. 2025-1137, or in the alternative, to dismiss that appeal. ECF No. 28. AlexSam opposes. Blackhawk and Simon reply. We dismiss AlexSam’s appeal.
In re T.S. (Nonprecedential Order)
In 2022, petitioners were granted entitlement to compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. But a protracted dispute over whether to now reassess the issue of entitlement based on previously undisclosed medical records has left the claim in limbo.
At present, the Special Master intends to hold a hearing over the failed disclosure and is considering petitioners’ request to excuse claimant’s mother from testifying, which purportedly will aggravate her mental-health condition. To assess that request, the Special Master ordered petitioners to turn over the claimant’s mother’s therapist’s treatment records. Arguing that those records are privileged, petitioners seek to challenge that ruling either as a direct appeal or in a petition for mandamus relief.
We hold that petitioners cannot appeal from the interlocutory order of the Special Master. Viewing this as a petition for a writ of mandamus, we conclude that petitioners have not met the demanding standard for relief.
WSOU Investments LLC v. F5, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
On February 21, 2025, we entered an Order directing the parties to address whether there is no appealable judgment in this case in light of F5’s assertion of invalidity counterclaims. ECF No. 64. The parties have responded, agreeing that at present there is no appealable judgment and reporting that they have jointly requested that the district court dismiss the invalidity counterclaims without prejudice. ECF No. 66.