This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a nonprecedential order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to order the District of Delaware to vacate an order setting an evidentiary hearing. The Federal Circuit also released two orders dismissing appeals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.
Gudinas v. McDonough (Precedential)
Appellant Gerry Gudinas was awarded a 50 percent disability rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) in 2005. In 2015, Mr. Gudinas filed a claim to increase his PTSD rating, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (“DVA”) determined that he was entitled to a 100 percent rating for PTSD. Mr. Gudinas challenges the DVA’s determination of the effective date for his 100 percent rating, arguing that his 2015 submission regarding PTSD constituted new and material evidence regarding a 2014 claim he made for sleep apnea. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In re Swirlate IP LLC (Nonprecedential Order)
Swirlate IP LLC submits a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to vacate its September 12, 2022, order setting an evidentiary hearing for December 6, 2022, which three named individuals are directed to attend, and to otherwise end proceedings relating to the district court’s standing orders of April 18, 2022.
This court concludes that Swirlate has not shown that the standards for mandamus relief are currently met. This court notes three considerations, without suggesting they are the only pertinent ones. First, the district court has, on December 1, 2022, itself stayed the September order. Second, the September order does not order disclosure of information for which privilege protections are claimed. Third, although Swirlate contends that this case has been dismissed, it has not substantiated the contention. The parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the claims with prejudice, and the counterclaims without prejudice, “subject to the approval and order of the” district court, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and (c). Appx. 134 (D. Ct. Dkt. # 28). But neither approval by the district court nor entry of a dismissal order has been shown.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.