Haddock v. United States
135 Fed. Cl. 82
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are Nehmer-class survivors and beneficiaries who allege VA readjudications recognized Agent Orange–related diseases and produced retroactive increases in VA disability ratings; some class members (retirees or survivors) therefore became entitled to retroactive military retired pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1414 (CRDP).
- VA began Nehmer readjudications after expanding presumptive Agent Orange diseases in 2010, mailed notice letters to class members, but in many instances withheld retroactive VA disability payments claiming offset by retired pay; DFAS allegedly failed to pay or communicate regarding retroactive military retired pay in many cases.
- NVLSP identified large numbers of class members with withheld benefits; VA has released millions after NVLSP submissions, but gaps remain (lists of living retirees in 2015–2016 were incomplete and survivors of deceased retirees were harder to identify).
- Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary relief (retroactive military retired pay); a related APA case (Davis) is pending in the N.D. Cal.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and mootness, arguing DFAS had already paid four named plaintiffs; plaintiffs amended the complaint to add new representatives and moved to stay proceedings pending the district court case.
- The Court denied the motion to dismiss (standing and mootness) and denied the motion to stay, allowing the monetary action to proceed in the Court of Federal Claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / mootness of named plaintiffs | Some named plaintiffs still have unpaid claims (Springer alleges underpayment; Meinz completed administrative claim); class claims persist and class certification must be allowed | DFAS paid several named plaintiffs in full, so those plaintiffs lack standing and claims are moot; court should dismiss rather than substitute plaintiffs | Denied dismissal; at least two named plaintiffs (Springer, Meinz) present live claims; "capable of repetition yet evading review" applies given Government payments targeting named plaintiffs |
| "Capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness | Government’s pattern of paying named plaintiffs to moot suits shows reasonable likelihood of recurrence and too-short duration to litigate; many potential class members remain unpaid | Government disputes jurisdiction and argues payments moot claims | Court found both elements satisfied (pattern of pick-off payments and many similarly situated veterans), so exception applies |
| Motion to stay pending parallel N.D. Cal. (APA) case | Stay would promote judicial efficiency; district court’s APA decision may affect monetary issues here | Parallel case involves different law, plaintiffs, and relief; no preclusive effect; indefinite delay risks timeliness of relief here | Denied stay; Court exercises docket control and prioritizes timely resolution and lack of pressing need to defer to Davis |
| Ripeness / exhaustion of administrative remedies for monetary relief | Plaintiffs have pursued available procedures (e.g., Meinz filed under 31 U.S.C. § 3702); class claims seek court-available monetary relief | Defendant asserts lack of proper administrative claim for some named parties | Court accepted that some plaintiffs have ripe claims and that monetary jurisdiction exists for proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Nehmer v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) (background on VA’s handling of Agent Orange claims and Nehmer class litigation)
- Nehmer v. United States Veterans’ Admin., 712 F. Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (district court decision invalidating VA regulation and leading to Nehmer stipulation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements and elements)
- Torrington Co. v. United States, 44 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("capable of repetition, yet evading review" mootness exception)
- Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (standard for indefinite stays and pressing need)
- Myers Investigative & Security Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (standing as threshold jurisdictional issue)