Abadilla v. United States

Court of Claims

Abadilla v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 838, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163, 1982 WL 25245

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMarch 23, 1982

DocketApp. Nos. 60-81, 5-81, 33-81, 57-81, 54-81, 41-81, 38-81 and 7-81

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 Ct. Cl. 838 (Abadilla v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abadilla v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 838, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163, 1982 WL 25245 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

These are eight appeals from orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board ( mspb ). Petitioners are former civilian employees of the United States Government. They are [839]*839Philippine Nationals, reside in the Philippines, and, being retired, seek retirement annuities under United States law.

A former claim, Guevara v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 595, was similar except that it was a pre-reform Act case. Under date of November 13, 1981, we ordered the claim dismissed, reasoning that Mr. Guevara did not have the requisite 5 years of covered service, most of his time in United States employment having been spent in an excepted position not subject to United States retirement. He appeared ostensibly pro se, and filed no brief here, but we took his brief before the mspb as and for a brief in this court.

Respondent takes Guevara as a test case and moves to consolidate and dismiss the above eight. We do not have the necessary assurance to determine that all the cases are so identical that a mere reference to Guevara will show they lack any merit. Since petitioners are foreign nationals who are not represented by counsel and who reside at a great distance, care is requisite to establish the facts before we conclude that the claims are unmeritorious. If petitioners had been furnished a copy of our Guevara decision and agreed they had no case and to abandon their petitions, that would be a different case, of course.

Accordingly, respondent’s motions are denied without prejudice to a renewal properly founded on the mspb records, and furnishing an analysis of each claim, with dates of employment, job classifications, etc., so we could determine whether Guevara is an effective precedent.

IT IS SO ORDERED

On November 16, 1982 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the mspb

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

These are eight appeals from orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board ( mspb ). Petitioners are former civilian employees of the United States Government. They are [839]*839Philippine Nationals, reside in the Philippines, and, being retired, seek retirement annuities under United States law.

A former claim, Guevara v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 595, was similar except that it was a pre-reform Act case. Under date of November 13, 1981, we ordered the claim dismissed, reasoning that Mr. Guevara did not have the requisite 5 years of covered service, most of his time in United States employment having been spent in an excepted position not subject to United States retirement. He appeared ostensibly pro se, and filed no brief here, but we took his brief before the mspb as and for a brief in this court.

Respondent takes Guevara as a test case and moves to consolidate and dismiss the above eight. We do not have the necessary assurance to determine that all the cases are so identical that a mere reference to Guevara will show they lack any merit. Since petitioners are foreign nationals who are not represented by counsel and who reside at a great distance, care is requisite to establish the facts before we conclude that the claims are unmeritorious. If petitioners had been furnished a copy of our Guevara decision and agreed they had no case and to abandon their petitions, that would be a different case, of course.

Accordingly, respondent’s motions are denied without prejudice to a renewal properly founded on the mspb records, and furnishing an analysis of each claim, with dates of employment, job classifications, etc., so we could determine whether Guevara is an effective precedent.

IT IS SO ORDERED

On November 16, 1982 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the mspb

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 Ct. Cl. 838, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 163, 1982 WL 25245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abadilla-v-united-states-cc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack