RALPH COPPOLA V. US DEPT. VETERANS AFFAIRS, No. 20-70361 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RALPH JAMES COPPOLA, Petitioner, No. 20-70361 MEMORANDUM* v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ROBERT WILKIE, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondents, ______________________________ MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Intervenor. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB No. SF-1221-17-0027-M-1 Submitted April 19, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: KLEINFELD, D.M. FISHER,*** and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. We dismiss the petition for review because it is moot. Petitioner argues that the administrative judge in his case was defectively appointed under Lucia v. Securities Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). He also moves for injunctive relief. We dismiss the petition as moot and deny the motion for injunctive relief for lack of jurisdiction. Though the MSPB lacked a quorum from January 6, 2017 to March 4, 2022, it now has a quorum, and has duly appointed a new administrative judge in Coppola’s case, who undertakes to adjudicate the case anew, without reliance on any rulings or decisions made by the putatively defectively appointed judge. Accordingly, Coppola’s challenge to the appointment of the administrative judge previously assigned is now moot. Likewise, the previous judge’s dismissal without prejudice subject to automatic reinstatement, if it was subject to review, no longer is, because Coppola’s case has been reinstated. The petition for review is DISMISSED. *** The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.