B-142324, OCT. 7, 1960
Highlights
ATTORNEYS AT LAW: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 7. MONDEAU'S CLAIM IN THE LATTER CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA THROUGH THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR. IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WHERE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON STIPULATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL RULING AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF 28 U.S.C. 2517 IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU STATE THAT YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS OF JUNE 8. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. 2517 (B) ONLY SERVE AS A BAR TO RECOVERY FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE PRIOR JUDGMENTS AND NOT FOR THE PERIODS SUBSEQUENT THERETO BUT PRIOR TO DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
B-142324, OCT. 7, 1960
TO KING AND KING, ATTORNEYS AT LAW:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 7, 1960, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF APRIL 12, 1960, B-142324, DENYING THE CLAIM OF MR. WILLIAM EDDY FOR WITHHELD RETIRED PAY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 15, 1951, THROUGH FEBRUARY 3, 1953.
IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 12, 1960, WE STATED THAT IN THE MAJORITY OPINION OF JULY 15, 1959, IN THE CASE OF JOHN J. AMSDEN, ET AL. (MONDEAU, PLAINTIFF NO. 19) V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 134-54, THE COURT DISCUSSED THE EARLIER STIPULATED JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY MONDEAU AND IMPLIED STRONGLY THAT BUT FOR THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW MONDEAU'S MOTION TO REOPEN JUDGMENT IN THE EARLIER CASE SO AS TO PERMIT THE TYPE OF CLAIM ADVANCED IN THE AMSDEN CASE, MONDEAU'S CLAIM IN THE LATTER CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA THROUGH THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR. WE THEN CONCLUDED THAT, IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WHERE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON STIPULATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL RULING AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF 28 U.S.C. 2517 IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DID NOT FEEL THAT WE COULD AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT OF MR. EDDY'S CLAIM UNTIL THERE HAD BEEN SOME JUDICIAL CLARIFICATION OF THE MATTER.
YOU STATE THAT YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS OF JUNE 8, 1960, IN THE CASE OF JOHN J. AMSDEN, ET AL. (JAMES B. MCCARTHY, PLAINTIFF NO. 17) V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 134-54, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. 2517 (B) ONLY SERVE AS A BAR TO RECOVERY FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE PRIOR JUDGMENTS AND NOT FOR THE PERIODS SUBSEQUENT THERETO BUT PRIOR TO DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
WHILE MONDEAU'S CLAIM WAS HELD NOT TO BE RES JUDICATA, THE COURT'S STATEMENTS IN THAT REGARD ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE HOLDING IN THE MCCARTHY CASE, AND SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT CLARIFICATION IS BEING SOUGHT AND ALSO THAT OTHER MATTERS ARE STILL BEING LITIGATED IN THE MCCARTHY CASE. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THAT CASE AT PRESENT AS A PRECEDENT FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS PENDING IN OUR OFFICE.
ACCORDINGLY, NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON MR. EDDY'S CLAIM AT THE PRESENT TIME.