In Re BODNAR , No. 20-125 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-125 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2020 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: ANDREW G. BODNAR, CHRISTINE M. ZAJBODNAR, FRANK H. BUNKER, RICHARD R. CARTER, M. LYNN CARTER, J. THOMAS CONKLIN TRUST, GERARD V. COSGROVE, RUTH COSGROVE, as trustees of the Gerard V. Cosgrove and Ruth Cosgrove Living Trust, MARILYN J. CUNAT, MARC DEL MARIANI, MARY DEL MARIANI, EHRET MICHIGAN TRUST, GEORGE J. GREGULE, JR., VICTORIA JACKSON, aka Victoria Illsen, HYUN S. JYUNG TRUST, ROBERT J. KANE, PATRICIA KANE, FRANK F. LAHR, CHARLOTTE D. LAHR, RICHARD NEUSER, ROBERT S. PANCOAST, PAMELA S. PANCOAST, LEONARD J. SMITH, KAY F. VARGA, aka Kay F. Smith, ROBERT D. MELCHER, MARIA MELCHER, CRAIG D. OKONSKI, CHERIE R. OKONSKI, KENT WERGER, MARGARET WERGER, ROGER B. WILSCHKE, ANN C. WILSCHKE, COUNTRY, L.L.C., L. RICHARD MARZKE, NANCY A. MARZKE, NOTRE DAME PATH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, HERZL RAGINE, M.D., ELIZABETH S. ERRANT, aka Elizabeth Saphir, BANK ONE, FKA NBD BANK, N.A., Petitioners ______________________ 2020-125 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in Nos. 1:00-cv-00379-EMR, 1:00- Case: 20-125 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2020 IN RE: BODNAR 2 cv-00381-EMR, 1:00-cv-00382-EMR, 1:00-cv-00384-EMR, 1:00-cv-00385-EMR, 1:00-cv-00386-EMR, 1:00-cv-00387EMR, 1:00-cv-00391-PEC, 1:00-cv-00392-EMR, 1:00-cv00393-EMR, 1:00-cv-00394-EMR, 1:00-cv-00395-EMR, 1:00-cv-00396-EMR, 1:00-cv-00398-EMR, 1:00-cv-00399EMR, 1:00-cv-00400-EMR, 1:00-cv-00401-EMR, 1:05-cv01381-EMR, 1:06-cv-00072-EMR, 1:99-cv-04452-EMR, 1:99-cv-04453-EMR, 1:99-cv-04455-EMR, 1:99-cv-04457EMR, 1:99-cv-04458-EMR, 1:99-cv-44510-EMR, and 1:99cv-4456-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before REYNA, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus asking this court to direct the United States to indicate whether it agrees or disagrees with their calculations regarding real estate lost by erosion “and to provide its own calculations if it disagrees without further delay.” We find that the petitioners have not demonstrated that they satisfy the standard for mandamus relief at this time. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. FOR THE COURT May 20, 2020 Date s25 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
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.
