Case: 20-125 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2020
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ANDREW G. BODNAR, CHRISTINE M. ZAJ-
BODNAR, FRANK H. BUNKER, RICHARD R.
CARTER, M. LYNN CARTER, J. THOMAS CONKLIN
TRUST, GERARD V. COSGROVE, RUTH
COSGROVE, as trustees of the Gerard V. Cosgrove
and Ruth Cosgrove Living Trust, MARILYN J.
CUNAT, MARC DEL MARIANI, MARY DEL
MARIANI, EHRET MICHIGAN TRUST, GEORGE J.
GREGULE, JR., VICTORIA JACKSON, aka Victoria
Illsen, HYUN S. JYUNG TRUST, ROBERT J. KANE,
PATRICIA KANE, FRANK F. LAHR, CHARLOTTE
D. LAHR, RICHARD NEUSER, ROBERT S.
PANCOAST, PAMELA S. PANCOAST, LEONARD J.
SMITH, KAY F. VARGA, aka Kay F. Smith, ROBERT
D. MELCHER, MARIA MELCHER, CRAIG D.
OKONSKI, CHERIE R. OKONSKI, KENT WERGER,
MARGARET WERGER, ROGER B. WILSCHKE, ANN
C. WILSCHKE, COUNTRY, L.L.C., L. RICHARD
MARZKE, NANCY A. MARZKE, NOTRE DAME
PATH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, HERZL
RAGINE, M.D., ELIZABETH S. ERRANT, aka Eliza-
beth Saphir, BANK ONE, FKA NBD BANK, N.A.,
Petitioners
______________________
2020-125
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in Nos. 1:00-cv-00379-EMR, 1:00-
Case: 20-125 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2020
2 IN RE: BODNAR
cv-00381-EMR, 1:00-cv-00382-EMR, 1:00-cv-00384-EMR,
1:00-cv-00385-EMR, 1:00-cv-00386-EMR, 1:00-cv-00387-
EMR, 1:00-cv-00391-PEC, 1:00-cv-00392-EMR, 1:00-cv-
00393-EMR, 1:00-cv-00394-EMR, 1:00-cv-00395-EMR,
1:00-cv-00396-EMR, 1:00-cv-00398-EMR, 1:00-cv-00399-
EMR, 1:00-cv-00400-EMR, 1:00-cv-00401-EMR, 1:05-cv-
01381-EMR, 1:06-cv-00072-EMR, 1:99-cv-04452-EMR,
1:99-cv-04453-EMR, 1:99-cv-04455-EMR, 1:99-cv-04457-
EMR, 1:99-cv-04458-EMR, 1:99-cv-44510-EMR, and 1:99-
cv-4456-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before REYNA, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus asking this court
to direct the United States to indicate whether it agrees or
disagrees with their calculations regarding real estate lost
by erosion “and to provide its own calculations if it disa-
grees without further delay.” We find that the petitioners
have not demonstrated that they satisfy the standard for
mandamus relief at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
FOR THE COURT
May 20, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s25