Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States

121 Fed. Cl. 134, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 558, 2015 WL 2228061
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 115 Fed. Cl. 645
United States Court of Federal Claims·Decided May 11, 2015·No. 12-488C·Published

Opinion

Amendment of Opinion

ORDER AMENDING APRIL 30, 2015 OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAMS, Judge,

On May 4, 2015, the Court received an ex parte email communication from the Special Assistant to a Commissioner at the Postal Regulatory Commission requesting a eorrec *135 tion of the Court’s April 30, 2015 decision. On May 5, 2015, the Court issued a Notice informing the parties of this communication and requesting that the parties file their positions regarding the resolution of this request. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant took a position on whether the requested correction should be made.

The Court amends the following sentence in its April 30, 2015 decision on page 7, lines 19-21 under subtitle “Major Personnel Changes at PRC: July-September 2009:” “On September 1, 2009, PRC’s Chief Counsel, Michael Ravnitzky, forwarded an email to Chairman Goldway that he had received from Meyer Group’s Mr. Rayborn about a possible property tour. Tr. 204:4-5 (Gold-way); JX 89.” The Court replaces “PRC’s Chief Counsel, Michael Ravnitzky” with “Chairman Goldway’s Chief Counsel.” The revised sentence reads as follows: “On September 1, 2009, Chairman Goldway’s Chief Counsel forwarded an email to Chairman Goldway that he had received from Meyer Group’s Mr. Rayborn about a possible property tour. Tr. 204:4-5 (Goldway); JX 89.”

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

Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 134, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 558, 2015 WL 2228061 (uscfc 2015).

121 Fed. Cl. 134 (Meyer Group, Ltd. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.