Marilyn A. Bobula v. United States Department of Justice

grant Board’s appeal Opryland’s BOBULA, of was taken as Marilyn Plaintiff- A. summary judgment

of 21(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. Appellant, Lanham right. devoid of appeal is not 1071(a)(1). The from our decision basis, apparent is American raised. DEPARTMENT OF issues Great STATES UNITED several JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee. misrepresentation allegation of

made faith, not mention and indeed did bad No. 91-1426. or false of likelihood confusion issues for sanctions. in its motion suggestion Appeals, States Court Federal Circuit. sole- based American’s motion was Great “changed Oрryland’s ly position July argument frivolous circumstances” However, WSM, v. Hilton. Inc. view WSM, did not Inc. v. Hilton that- were questions not decide could usage it, including the matter before the future. years into public perception Opry- sanctionable behavior It was not to raise this issue based to seek

land changed circumstances.

asserted meet did not

Although American Great sanctions, movant for obligations of a right to its obliged to defend was

Opryland good its appeal, and to

bring this defend in- vague unsupported

faith filing of an un- faith. The of bad

ference not re- motion sanctions

warranted advocacy. simply produces It

sponsible fair litigation, replacing debate

satellite tacti- premise factual

legal theory and distraction, increasing the cost to

cal unnecessary burden an

parties, placing merits that must ascertain

on the court the motion. motion is DENIED.

Costs Opryland.

Costs AND REMANDED.

VACATED Besser, Besser, Elfvin & Kaye

Barbara Cleveland, Ohio, plaintiff-appel- argued, did not establish that she Bruce B. because Bobula her on brief was With lant. under the Littlе had a enforceable contract Elfvin. not have the district did Justice, Dept, Rudy, Atty., K. Susan jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. subject matter D.C., argued, defendant- Washington, (1988). 1346(a)(2) Additionally, because § were on brief her the appellee. With jurisdic- requirements for mandamus the Gerson, Atty. Asst. Gen. M. Stuart satisfied, the court did tion are not Biddle, Atty. C. Barbara under subject not have matter statute, 28 U.S.C. the mandamus NEWMAN, Judge, § Circuit Before (1988). independent basis of As no other Judge, and COWEN, Circuit Senior asserted,1 subject matter was MICHEL, Judge. ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍Circuit carry her Bobula has failed to burden MICHEL, Judge. Circuit Thеrefore, affirm. prove jurisdiction. appeals the June A. Marilyn Bobula District United of the States 1991 order BACKGROUND Ohio, of the Northern District working Antitrust began complaint for lack dismissing her Cleveland, Ohio, The in in 1979. Division v. United jurisdiction. Bobula during found that the course district court Justice, 1:91 No. CV Dep’t Case

States employment several her Bobula filed (N.D.Ohio June 0724, 1991 WL 353882 grievances in the DOJ’s adminis- internal alleged 1991). complaint, Bobula In her Bobula, slip system.2 op. grievance trative Department of Jus- States United the Substantially grievances 3. all of thosе at agree- (DOJ) the settlement tice breached agreement resolved in a settlement were grievances. personnel resolving her August and the DOJ on between Bobula agreement, the DOJ the pro- The settlement 1986. posi- Bobula from to transfer promised vides: Cleve- Antitrust Division’s the Ms. Bo- Department The will transfer land, Ohio, the DOJ to United office of to the States a “slot” bula and Cleveland, in Ohio. Attorney’s Office States Cleveland, Ohio, Office, Attorney’s reassignment after this Nearly years five loss of without October effectuated, Bo- the DOJ transferred was to which rights, privileges, or interests Attorney’s Of- the United States bula from presently is entitled.... of Ohio the Northern District fice for Akron, office to its satellite Cleveland agreement, to the settlement Pursuant (1988). Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § Di- to the Criminal transferred was of the forms basis The transfer later Attorney’s of- vision the United States seeks, appeal, Bobula alleged On breach. Cleveland, Ohio, effective October fice alia, added ex- compensation inter until in Cleveland remained commuting Akron. pense of to 28 U.S.C. reassignment, pursuant (1988),3 Division claim not seek to the Criminal did Bobula’s § Because in Ak- court, office Attorney’s but damages in the district United States April relief, ron, Ohio, May 1991. On declaratory injunctive and only provides, U.S.C. theory jurisdiction un- 545 of Title 28 respect to her 3.Section 1. With (federal question), pertinent does no part: der § allege jurisdiction 1331and §§ than more (b) determine The General 1361, properly together. § We note that attorneys States of United official stations invoked, may provide in and of attorneys within United States assistant superfluous and 1331 is In this case itself. appointed. they are districts for which Therefore, address this we need not irrelevant. 28 U.S.C. 545. further. assertion both within Cleveland and Akron grievance procedure is mandated DOJ’s Ohio. U.S.C. District of Northern (1988). by Office of by regulations promulgated pt. Management at 5 C.F.R. Personnel 1991,4 implication this action in the United preexisting filed that an of a statute Court for the Northern Dis- may repealed by implication District States of a complaint sought injunc- statute). of Ohio. subsequent trict the CSRA declaratory relief for breach of tive and repeal by implication judicial can interpre- contract, attorney and costs and fees. Bo- implications preexisting tations or stat- asserted that the district court had bula utes. See id. (finding independent Tuck- (feder- jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ er Act because the CSRA re- (Little Act), 1346(a)(2) question), al pealed by implication only implication (mandamus) (1988). The district and 1361 judicial interpretation Pay of the Back court, relying on the Service Rеform Civil could which have otherwise served as Fausto, (CSRA) United States jurisdiction). of Tucker Act basis 439, 668, 98 L.Ed.2d 830 484 U.S. 108 S.Ct. Although the settlement that complaint dismissed Bobula’s serves as the basis of Bobula’s claims arose lack of personnel grievances from that are within is in essence a ground that Bobula’s claim CSRA, the alleges ambit personnel claim. the Little Tucker Act both and the manda- specifically pro- mus statute and explicitly DISCUSSION provided vide other avenues of relief not The was intended to be a CSRA Additionally, the CSRA. our review comprehensive legislative and exclusive legislative history of the CSRA and its does govern personnel scheme to federal mat explicit repeal not reveal an of the text of Fausto, 484 U.S. at 443, 108 S.Ct. at ters. either the Little Tucker Act or the manda- OPM, 768, 773, 671; Lindahl v. However, part. mus statute in whole or in 1620, 1624, L.Ed.2d 674 105 S.Ct. case, on the facts of this neither the Little such, only As the avenues for relief pro- Tucker Act nor the mandamus statute by the personnel matters covered CSRA vides an avenue of relief. for in the CSRA. Faus prоvided are those Neither the Little Tucker Act nor to, (“[U]n- at 677 484 U.S. at 108 S.Ct. explicitly provides statute the mandamus comprehensive integrated and re der the underlying personnel for review of an ac CSRA, view scheme of the Claims tion, prior To the extent that the courts (and any relying on other court Tuck interpreted the CSRA have the Little Tuck jurisdiction) ‘appropriate not an er Act (or Act) or the manda er Act authority’ agency’s personnel to review an providing for of an mus statute as review determinаtion.”). CSRA, however, action, underlying personnel federal such repeal cannot read to other statutes interpretations give way must judicial See id. explicitly. at unless it does so replace the congressional intent “to Therefore, if at 676. another haphazard arrangements for administrative specifically pro independently statute judicial personnel review of action” vides an avenue of relief a case that to the extent with the CSRA. governed exclusively would otherwise be underlying review of the that Bobula seeks CSRA, by given that statute must be action, position entirely personnel her explicitly repeal effect the CSRA did without merit. it. essence, Bobula, review of comprehensive na seeks Because CSRA, however, reassignment to Akron. that rule does from Cleveland ture of personnel action which have been She wants to have not extend statutes theory interpreted providing under a merely judicially declared invalid At by agreement removed U.S. another avеnue of relief or which mere reassign her torney’s statutory power to implication provide another avenue of re District of Ohio. She Id. at (stating the Northern lief. 108 S.Ct. at 676 within reassignment February would was informed that her 4. Bobula was notified 15, 1991, May reassigned, April be effective she would be 853, 854, this court U.S. 95 S.Ct. 43 L.Ed.2d the district court or wants either (1975). Bobula has failed to do both. for the North- to order the U.S. to return her to Cleve- ern District of Ohio A. A Contract land. agreement, The settlement which However, may not obtain ele Bobula claims satisfies contractual Act because Little Tucker under the establishing jur ment for Little Tucker Act underly- review of the require relief would isdiction, personnel arising settles matters (reassignment to Ak- personnel action grievance proce out of the DOJ’s ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍internal agree- ron). or not the settlement Whether grievance procedure was man dure. prevents the by its terms U.S. Attor- by regulations promulgated by OPM dated Bobula, reassigning re- ney from fact part “integrated as a of the CSRA’s reassigning that the act of Bobulа is mains judicial re scheme of administrative personnel action. For Bobula to obtain Fausto, view.” 484 U.S. at relief, underlying per- must review the S.Rep. Cong., at 672. No. 95th 2d See However, action. neither this court sonnel (1978), reprinted Sess. jurisdiction under nor the district court has (indicating that U.S.C.C.A.N. Little Tucker Act to review the under- Management] “the Office Personnel [of Fausto, 484 lying personnel action. See responsibility for will retain overall (“All 453, 108 S.Ct. at 676 that we U.S. at management system”); service civil ‘repealed’ by been the CSRA to have

find pt. (setting regulations 5 C.F.R. 771 forth interpretation judicial of the Back agencies shall estab within which covered or, will, you Pay if Pay the Back Act— system). grievance lish an administrative implication allowing review in the Act’s — scheme, integrated the CSRA is an Since person- underlying of Claims Court agreement and since the settlement arose giving rise to the claim for nel decision scheme, integrated the settle from this added)). backpay.” (emphasis Additional- ment must be enforced within below, failed to show ly, as set out Bobula рrovided procedures for the CSRA or required the elements for Little Tucker Act agree not at all. the settlement jurisdiction. may not be enforced as a contract forum, including any outside CSRA establishing Bobula bore the burden the district court under the Little Tucker jurisdiction. court Rocovich v. Act. States, 991, (Fed.Cir. F.2d 993 1991) (“A party seeking the exercise of Money B. A Claim jurisdiction in its favor has the burden of exists.”). Bobula also failed to meet her burden of jurisdiction establishing that such jurisdiction to proving because she failed respect to under both With right payment money and to assert a to 1346(a)(2) failed to §§ request monetary relief at the trial level. bear burden. The courts have construed Little Tucker jurisdiction as limited to actions for Act I. Jurisdiction Under U.S.C. injunctive monetary, opposed to or de 1346(a)(2)(Little Act) Tucker Lee, claratory, relief. 420 U.S. at 853-54; To establish under the Little v. S.Ct. at Werner United States Act,5 Interior, Serv., she Dep’t Tucker Bobula had to show that Fish & Wildlife (8th Cir.1978) (“Under contract the United en- 581 F.2d had a States the Tucker of district forceable the statute and that she long arising court has been construed as limited to money had a claim therefrom. 28 Thornton, 1346(a)(2); money judgments for and not Lee v. 420 actions U.S.C. § States, |10,- 1346(a) exceeding provides: the United of Title 5. Section amount, express upon any founded ... 000 in original jurisdic- The district courts shall have implied tion, contract with the United States.... or concurrent with the United States Claims Court, 1346(a)(2). (2) [any] claim 28 U.S.C. of ... civil action or relief.”); exception Jones equitable With of á claim for for include suits Cir.) fees, Alexander, 609 F.2d (5th аttorney requested costs and v. only equitable relief in the district court.6 longer in (“The is therefore no Tucker Act fact, purposes establishing In man only applies that Act question because jurisdiction, alleged damus denied, cert. damages.”), money suits for damages adequate would not be L.Ed.2d 37 they could not be calculated in event.7 however, appeal, requests On mon etary par relief for breach of contract. A equitable limited While not, suits, may appeal, ty assert as the basis in Tucker Act sometimes available of the trial forum’s a claim for incidental equitable relief must be relief not asserted trial forum. money dam a claim for and collateral request monetary Bobula did not re Since (confer 1491(a)(2)(1988) ages. 28 U.S.C. § forum, in the trial not address lief ring equitable powers limited Claims addition, request here. issue complete they if jurisdic here is not whether this court has they are “incidental of relief and tion, court did. but whether the district Simanonojc judgment); to” the collateral monetary damages, а claim for Without Simanonok, (Fed.Cir. 918 F.2d juris there was no basis for district cog 1990) (“[I]njunctive claims ... are not pursuant 1346(a)(2). We find diction Act in a Little Tucker nizable right mon failed to assert a case, colorable absent a concurrent request monetary relief in the dis ey and S.Rep. No. monetary recovery.”); claim for thereby conclude trict court and that she reprint Cong., 2d 92d Sess. jurisdic Little Tucker Act failed to invoke (indicat 3116, 3117 ed in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. tion. pow grant equitable of limited ing that the Court, then the Court ers to the Claims 1361 II. under 28 U.S.C. Jurisdiction § Claims, сlass of cases “does not extend ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍the (Mandamus) jurisdic has which the over [Claims Court] Morris, 602, 616, Ringer, In Heckler v. v. also Richardson tion”). See 2013, 2022, 465-66, 629, 630-31, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 34 104'S.Ct. U.S. stated that 28 (1973) (indicating the,Supreme the Lit U.S.C. L.Ed.2d 647 remedy 1361,8 provide to a “is intended gave to the district courts tle Tucker § only if he has exhausted all plaintiff a of the Claims for powers and limitations only if the $10,000). relief and other avenues of less than Court for suits further relief as “Prayer complaint F.Award such other and in her 6.Bobula's For Relief’ vindi- just proper, requests: is and and/or filed in the district rights. proteсt Plaintiff's cate and WHEREFORE, prays 25. Plaintiff "Prayér is for Relief’ "F" of Bobula’s Section Honorable Court sufficient, more, satisfy her bur- without not August the contract A. Declare properly As a claim. establishing den construed, effect; to be in full force and equitable re- additional it refers to breached B. Declare Defendants to have monetary to refer to Even if intended lief. relief, by reassigning to an said contract Plaintiff vagueness. facially it is defective Ohio; Cleveland, than in office other Defendants, Enjoin prоhibit and includ- C. filed in the Declaration In Plaintiffs Unsworn agents employees, from reas- stated, their court, traditional "I have no trial monetary remedy_” Plaintiff, taking any signing actions from Plaintiff-Ap- appeal, On adversely employment affect which Plaintiffs that, ... pellant is axiomatic "[i]t also states reputation, opportunities or or otherwise remedy adequate at law.” Ms. has no contract; breaching August provides: 1361 of Title 28 Defendants, 8. Section including their D. Order original jurisdic- specifi- employees, The district сourt shall have agents to honor and August mandamus in the nature of cally perform 30, tion of action under the contract 1986; employee the Unit- compel an officer or action, perform a any agency thereof ed States or duty the costs of this E. Award Plaintiff plaintiff. attorney pursuant to the owed including fees reasonable 2412; § 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. Section to Title 28 compulsion, him clear nondiscretion- such case which a defendant owes Orr, impose, may compul- 754 F.2d duty.” Maier v. court is asked be ary Accоrd (“Before (Fed.Cir.1985) a against sovereign, writ although sion [of issue, ele- three may properly nominally against directed the individual mandamus] (1) right in the a clear exist: is, barred, ments must If it officer. then the suit is (2) sought; a clear plaintiff to the relief against not because it is a suit an officer do the defendant to part of the duty on the Government, is, but because it (3) adequate no other question; act substance, against a suit the Government available.”). remedy court, over which the absence consent, jurisdiction. has 1361 to serve as a basis For § must a jurisdiction, the suit suit 687-88, Id. at 69 S.Ct. at 1460-61. personally and not against the defendant stated, the court in Larson a suit for As Boutwell, his office. States v. specific performance against sovereign Wall.) 604, 607, (17 21 L.Ed. 721 U.S. specific requires the consent of the sover- against suit an officer of When a above, eign. As mentioned a suit under government seeks to the United States against personal- 1361 is a suit an officer capacity compel the officer in his official and, therefore, ly, sovereign, it duty not otherwise perform a contractual sovereign read as a waiver of cannot be Constitution, statute, a required by the a immunity. Coggeshall Corp. Dev. See against a suit the office. regulation, it is Diamond, (1st Cir.1989) 884 F.2d Foreign v. Domestic & Commerce Larson (“The provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1361 creat- Corp., 337 U.S. ing the federal mandamus action do not (1949)(“We hold that if 93 L.Ed. 1628 immunity sovereign a waiver of constitute an officer do not conflict the actions of States.”). Therefore, by the United statutory the terms of his valid au provide 1361 cannot they thе U.S.C. thority, then actions of suit, essence, duty alleged merely a a contrac- sovereign....”). Such where Constitution, govern unsupported by a the United States duty suit tual performance specific ment for of a con statute, regulation. or a See White v. duty a contractual alone tract. Admin., 343 Administrator Gen. Servs. cannot serve as the basis of the nondiscre- (“To (9th Cir.1965) F.2d find in tionary duty necessary jurisdic to invoke step revolutionary such a on the § tion under § overturning part Congress as the since the founda- what had beеn settled law Larson, Supreme In the Court addressed Government, i.e., the that the courts tion of determining a problem the whether suit jurisdiction the do not have to order in a against an officer was effect suit specifically perform its con- Government to against government. The stated: the tracts, to make too much of a would be question the becomes difficult and simple piece legislation.”). short and controversy area of is entered when the damages spe- suit is not one for for but allegеs that her settlement Bobula i.e., recovery cific relief: the specific Department of Justice agreement with the monies, ejectment land, property or from nondiscretionary duty part created a injunction directing or either or restrain- “to assign to not of the defendants ing the defendant officer’s actions. In Attorney’s other than any U.S. office question directly such case is each Cleveland, On the basis of Ohio.” whether, posed by obtaining as to relief re agreement, seeks to offiсer, not, against the relief will in ef- from exercis Attorney strain the General fect, against the sovereign. ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍be obtained statutory authority reassign Bo his to sovereign only through For the can act under Bobula admits and, bula 28 U.S.C. 545. agents agent’s are when an actions § restrain restrained, requests that the relief she would sovereign may, itself exercising him, that from through be restrained.... each General grievance procedure from the settle- 545 of Title .which statutory power.9 Section arose seek enforcemеnt of the will of to expression an represents partic- argument, manage agreement. affairs a At oral coun- sovereign to its Hence, seeking to restrain might admitted relief way. for Bobula that ular sel exercising from sovereign agents grievance procedure argued of the but had authority reassign Bobu- statutory to “required their Bobula should not be to that the sover- la, seeking to restrain Bobula is an election of remedies choose make expressed exercising its will from eign co-existing The district forums.” between juris- theory of Because Bobula’s in 545. jurisdic- § not exercise mandamus court per- specific for to a suit diction amounts the action if are other ave- tion over there States, we formance plaintiff. of relief available Heck- nues lacked the district court that hold 616, ler, 466 U.S. at 104 S.Ct. at 2022. under 28 U.S.C. Because there are other of relief avenues Bobula, did not meet available Frivolity III. establishing jurisdiction burden of un- her Act Little Tucker respect to both With she admits 28 U.S.C. 1361. Because der failed jurisdiction, Bobula mandamus available, of relief are her avenues other each of the critical allege that to even jurisdic- from denial of mandamus appeal have type for that elements being frivolous- as filed. tion borders theory of example, Bobula’s met. For been Furthermore, even Bobula could Tucker Act under the Little requirements jur for that the complaint’s show facially §. deficient was light present, are would have to monetary relief isdiction request failure its dis authority requiring а that the district abused clear show court 140, Lee, See, refusing jurisdic U.S. at its e.g., to exercise cretion claim. monetary request for A at 853-54. tion in this case. whether decision monetary injury a claim or at least even exercise elements, established, jurisdic- Tucker Act clearly for Little where the that Bobu- does show The record of the trial tion. the sound discretion is within claim; nor does request Court, la made such a Dist. Kerr v. United court. States at the argue that she did so even 96 S.Ct. U.S. appeal Bobula’s (“[I]t important trial level. L.Ed.2d dismissing court erred issuance of writ [of remember jurisdic- lack of Little Tucker large part case a matter of inis mandamus] filed being frivolous as borders peti to which the discretion failed to show appeal in her addressed.”); because Schlagenhauf tion is in the trial money claim was raised a Holder, 112 n. showing prerequisite is a forum.10 Such (1964) (“The is 13 L.Ed.2d n. Finch any argument for See reversal. itself extraordinary writ is this suance Co., 926 F.2d Hughes v. discretion.”); Roche a matter of generally Aircraft (Fed.Cir.1991). Assn., 319 U.S. Milk Evaporated (1943) L.Ed. 1185 Likеwise, theory regard to writs, equitable like (“The law common failed to jurisdiction, mandamus in remedies, granted or withheld may be a allege in the even court.”). As discretion of sound element, i.e., all she exhausted that has discretion such, court’s review of a district Heckler, 466 of relief. See avenues other un ary not to exercise 2022; Maier, decision 104 S.Ct. at U.S. at any, it had assuming that even has not der Specifically, at 983. F.2d of dis- abuse reviewed under the must be return to she could not that shown for mone- asked brief, fact that Bobula later contract The “[t]he states In her appeal relevant. tary is not the discretion from the U.S. removed assigning enjoy Ms. Bo- might otherwise she duty another station." bula standard. Bobula does not even cretion CONCLUSION its allege that the district court abused The district jurisdic- court did not have discretion, merely that the district but 1346(a)(2) tion under 28 U.S.C. because legal error. Bobula main- court committed Bobula did not make a claim for primarily court erred tains that the district damages and because there was no сon- require- that she satisfied the tract enforceable under the Little Tucker basis juris- Act. The district court does not have jurisdiction and that ments of mandamus diction under 28 U.S.C. 1361 either. not consider the district court did Bobula’s Therefore, the district court’s dismissal for jurisdiction. As arguments for mandamus lack of above, argu- has not even shown requirements of manda- ably satisfied the AFFIRMED. jurisdiction,

mus and the record reveals NEWMAN, Judge, PAULINE Circuit court did consider that the district Bobula’s concurring in the result. arguments jurisdiction. for mandamus join

I portion majority оpinion Additionally, even under Bobula’s remedy which holds that Ms. Bobula’s must found, theory all, the man own if at within the Civil Service act, perhaps Reform within the Justice damus to establish Department’s grievance proce- internal would have to show that the defendants dures, judicial and that direct enforcement duty breached a contractual owed to her. agreement of her settlement is not avail- is, however, There no such breach because able. arguably not there is even such contrac However, duty. agreement question tual The 1986 settlement was of first im- pression. view, my In to the that the answer states defendants transfer “will jurisdictional question was not of such clar- Ms. Bobula and a ‘slot’ the United States ity that it “borders on the frivolous” to Office, 1986_” Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney’s path have followed the she chose in invok- language October This cre- Act, mandamus, ing Tucker and/or federal duty ates a to so transfer Ms. Bobula. The question jurisdiction in the district court. duty. defendants have satisfied this It government argument stated at oral prоmise keep does not her in the Cleve- that it did not know whether Ms. Bobula good land office forever. Even if a faith any remedy. litigant had administrative A requirement imposed could be that the de- does not risk in seek- sanctionable behavior keep fendants Cleveland ing courts, particularly the aid of the on a time, period years some the four Indeed, question impression. I first do satisfy she has been Cleveland would readily accept possibility that no requirement. such remedy may person be available to a whose employer with her Despite clear these deficiencies Bobu- breached, employer has been when the allegations relating jurisdiction, la’s the United States. appeal conclude that her is not frivolous. partly prior We do so because to this deci- jurisdictional are not boundaries holding squarely preclud- sion there was no bright, plea judicial and Ms. Bobula’s ing appellant’s precise arguments not so farfetched as to regard- intervention was allega- is no approach frivolousness. There juris- Little Act and mandamus bring this federal attempt particular, prior diction. case law derived from bad federal court contract to directly argument cited to us foreclosed the pleading. faith, or false misrepresentation, that review of enforcement of a portion of the court’s join Thus I do underlying personnel to an ac- “Frivolity”. opinion headed be had under the Little Tucker Act or the mandamus statute when suit is

based on a person- contract which ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‍settles a pending agency’s

nel matter in an internal

grievance procedure.

Case Details

Case Name: Marilyn A. Bobula v. United States Department of Justice

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Date Published: Jul 14, 1992

Citation: 970 F.2d 854

Docket Number: 91-1426

Court Abbreviation: Fed. Cir.