Richard Yoebstl v. Department of Veterans Affairs

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICHARD YOEBSTL,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent
______________________
2024-1052
______________________
Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in No.
FMCS 220601-06430 by John T. Nicholas.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before HUGHES and STARK, Circuit Judges, and WANG,
District Judge.1
PER CURIAM.
1 The Honorable Nina Y. Wang, District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
sitting by designation.
Case: 24-1052 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

YOEBSTL v. DVA 2
O R D E R
The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss
this appeal as moot. Petitioner, Richard Yoebstl, opposes
the motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Mr. Yoebstl was employed as an Electrical Industrial
Controls Mechanic in the Facilities Management Office of
the Department of Veterans Affairs John J. Pershing Med-
ical Center in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. P.A. 1.2 On May 1,
2019, Facilities Management Chief Shayne Minton gave
Mr. Yoebstl a letter that proposed his removal under
38 U.S.C. § 714. P.A. 709–12. The proposed removal speci-
fied five instances of misconduct under four charges. P.A.
709–12. On May 10, 2019, Mr. Yoebstl responded to his
proposed removal in writing. P.A. 108–10. On August 29,
2019, Mr. Yoebstl received a letter from Medical Center Di-
rector Patricia Hall at the U.S. Department of Veterans Af-
fairs notifying him of the decision to remove him from
employment effective August 30, 2019. P.A. 98–101.
On September 3, 2019, Mr. Yoebstl and his union filed
a Step Three Grievance contesting Mr. Yoebstl’s removal.
P.A. 86–87. On September 20, 2019, Mr. Yoebstl invoked
arbitration pursuant to his union’s collective bargaining
agreement and requested a panel of arbitrators. P.A. 117;
see also 5 U.S.C. § 7121(e)(1). On September 11, 2023, the
arbitrator sustained all four charges and upheld
Mr. Yoebstl’s removal. P.A. 23. On October 17, 2023,
Mr. Yoebstl appealed the arbitrator’s decision.
On December 21, 2023, as this appeal was pending,
Mr. Yoebstl settled his claims by electing a remedy of no
reinstatement with a one-time lump sum payment of
2 “P.A.” refers to the corrected appendix filed with
the Petitioner’s merits briefing. See ECF No. 35.
Case: 24-1052 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

YOEBSTL v. DVA 3
$132,815.81, S.A. 63–64,3 which was subsequently paid by
the agency on March 3, 2024. S.A. 65. Mr. Yoebstl “agree[d]
to release and waive any right to continue to pursue any
complaint, claim, lawsuit, grievance, appeal, or proceeding
of whatever nature arising from [his] adverse action by the
Department pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714 predating [his]
election.” S.A. 64. Mr. Yoebstl further agreed that the
agency could use the agreement “as evidence of [his] ex-
press authorization to dismiss any pending complaint,
claim, lawsuit, grievance, appeal, or proceeding of what-
ever nature arising from [his] adverse action by the Depart-
ment pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 714 predating [his] election.”
S.A. 64.
Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution con-
fines the role of federal courts to the adjudication of “cases”
or “controversies.” Standing to sue is an aspect of the case-
or-controversy requirement. Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated
Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.,
508 U.S. 656, 663–64 (1993). A case lacks “an actual or con-
crete dispute where the relief sought by a plaintiff is satis-
fied or otherwise rendered moot.” Monk v. Shulkin,
855 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing DeFunis v.
Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 (1974)). It is well-established
that “a ‘[s]ettlement moots an action’ because there is no
longer a case or controversy with respect to the settled is-
sues.” Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc.,
950 F.3d 849, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (alteration in original)
(quoting Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 866 F.2d 1391, 1392
(Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In the absence of Article III standing, a
court lacks jurisdiction.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus,
Inc., 523 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Because there is no longer a case or controversy, we
lack jurisdiction to consider Mr. Yoebstl’s appeal. To the
3 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
with the Respondent’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 50.
Case: 24-1052 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

YOEBSTL v. DVA 4
extent Mr. Yoebstl challenges the enforceability of the set-
tlement, we do not have jurisdiction to find the settlement
void in the first instance. See Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v.
Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Appel-
late courts review [final] judgments; we do not find facts.”).
If Mr. Yoebstl wishes to challenge the settlement’s enforce-
ability, he must pursue an action in the appropriate forum.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted.
(2) Mr. Yoebstl’s appeal is dismissed.
July 8, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 24-1052 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 4 of 4 --