Legal Opinion
Bhargava v. Veneman
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 7, 2001No. CIV A 98-2182 (ESH/JM)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.
Pending before me is Plaintiffs Motion to Grant Interest and Motion to Restore Health Care Coverage. For the reasons discussed below, I will deny plaintiffs motions.
BACKGROUND
This case was originally referred to me for settlement. On December 26, 2000, the parties in this matter settled the case. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, federal defendant United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) agreed to pay plaintiff a sum of $150,000.00 as “promptly as practicable consistent with the normal processing procedures” of the United States…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Library of Congress v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- James Brown, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Secretary of the Army, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1994
- MacDonald v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
3Cited by2 opinions
- Marathon Oil Company and Mobile Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Marathon Oil Company and Mobile Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004