Worthington v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
Worthington v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James L. WORTHINGTON
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 96-61C.
United States Court of Federal Claims.
Apr 9, 2002.
52 Fed. Cl. 663
James L. Worthington, pro se, Reno, Nevada., Hillary A. Stern, Washington, D.C., with whom were Mark A. Melnick, Assistant Director, David Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, and David G. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.
Smith.
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 81%
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

SMITH, Senior Judge.

Before the court is plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration timely filed on November 28, 2001 under Rule 59 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. The motion follows the court’s decision issued on November 5, 2001, in which plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was denied and defendant’s cross-motion was granted. Plaintiff argues that the court’s opinion denying back pay and finding the doctrine of res judicata and the statute of limitations applicable was wrong on all counts. After careful consideration, the court DENIES plaintiffs motion. See Bergman v. Dept. of Commerce, 3 F.3d 432 (Fed.Cir.1993) (public employee’s claims were barred by doctrine of res judicata by decisions rendered in numerous actions before various federal courts.); Hart v. United States, 910 F.2d 815 (Fed.Cir.1990) (statute of limitations begins to run when all events have occurred which fix the liability of the government and entitle the claimant to institute an action.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.