KOOPMANN v. USA, No. 1:2009cv00333 - Document 367 (Fed. Cl. 2020)

Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION denying without prejudice 297 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 307 Motion to Substitute Party; granting 315 Motion to Substitute Party; granting 328 Motion to Substitute Party; granting 341 Motion to Substitute Party. The Clerk is directed to update the docket accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Eleni M. Roumel. (klb) Service on parties made.

Download PDF

KOOPMANN v. USA Doc. 367 In the United States Court of Federal Claims WILLIAM KOOPMANN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, No. 09-cv-333 T Filed: November 16, 2020 Defendant. PETER SOFMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, No. 10-cv-157 T Filed: November 16, 2020 Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In response to this Court’s April 28, 2020, and May 11, 2020 Orders (Koopmann ECF Nos. 143, 185 and Sofman ECF Nos. 117, 132), requiring that any motion for substitution pursuant to Rule 25 of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Rules) be filed by July 1, 2020, several persons filed such Rule 25 motions related to their spouse’s death (the “Movants”). All plaintiffs in these related actions are proceeding pro se, as are the Movants. 1 Defendant largely opposed such motions. See Koopmann ECF Nos. 309 & 347 (Burrus); 317 (Adams); 340 (McGrew); Fendelander (ECF No. 349). Although some of the pro se Movants filed their motions past the filing deadline, this Court nevertheless permitted the tardy filings and Defendant did not object to the motions on timeliness grounds. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Rule 25 states: “If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order the substitution of the proper party.” See Rule 25(a)(1). A motion for substitution may be made by “the decedent’s successor or representative.” Id. Each Movant in this action, acting pro se, has submitted adequate documentation showing, at minimum, that they were the surviving spouse of the decedent plaintiff, who also previously acted pro se in these actions. While Defendant contends that there may be unknown persons, other than the Movants who could act as a “proper party,” under Rule 25, “there can be multiple persons . . . who would be eligible to submit an appropriate substitution motion to the Court.” Snyder v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69 Fed. Cl. 390, 392 (2006). This Court finds in its discretion that each Movant qualifies as a “proper party” under Rule 25. Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the following motions for substitution: • • • Koopmann ECF Nos. 307 & 343 (substituting Mary Ann Burrus for Gary M. Burrus); Koopmann ECF No. 315 (substituting Connie Adams for Larry H. Adams); Koopmann ECF Nos. 328 & 351 (substituting Molly McGrew for Richard W. Mitchell); and • Koopmann ECF Nos. 341 & 360 (substituting Somchit Fendelander, Trustee of the Fendelander Family Trust for Dennis Fendelander). The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to reflect the substitutions on the docket. This Court waives the requirements of Rule 83.1 at this stage in the litigation as it relates to substitution by any Movants who are trustees, including Somchit Fendelander. Movants who are trustees, may continue in this action pro se, if they wish to do so. In light of the delay in adjudication of this case under the previous judge, and the nearly identical jurisdictional issues at issue in these actions, this Court finds it in the interest of justice to permit such Movant trustees 2 to continue to litigate in their deceased husbands’ stead without having to hire counsel. 2 This Court also previously granted five motions for substitution filed by the following Reconsideration Movants: Diana Raymond, substituting for George Raymond (Order, Koopmann ECF No. 281); Joan Donahue, substituting for Todd Donahue (Order, Koopmann ECF No. 282); Barbara Munyon, substituting for David Munyon (Order, Koopmann ECF No. 285); Carol Halstead, substituting for Jay A. Halstead (Order, Sofman ECF No. 166); and Judy A. O’Daniel, substituting for Samuel C. O’Daniel (Order, Sofman ECF No. 171). Subsequently, Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration related to these five Orders (Koopmann ECF No. 297; Sofman ECF No. 174). Defendant’s Motions for Reconsideration (Koopmann ECF No. 297; Sofman ECF No. 174) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the same reasons as set forth above. This Court recognizes Defendant’s arguments in its motion and accordingly holds that Defendant may file or renew a motion to reconsider should any of the Movants or Reconsideration Movants be awarded funds in this action, if Defendant still challenges those movants’ entitlement to such funds. Until that time, this Court finds that each Movant - acting pro se - has provided sufficient information to permit this Court, in its discretion, to grant the desired substitution under Rule 25. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Eleni M. Roumel ELENI M. ROUMEL Chief Judge The Court also notes that the prior judge in these actions referred the cases to the pro bono counsel panel, but no attorney took on the representation. See Koopmann ECF No. 89, Sofman ECF No. 93. 2 3

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.