In re: ANDREW G. BODNAR, CHRISTINE M. ZAJ- BODNAR, FRANK H. BUNKER, RICHARD R.… v. COSGROVE, RUTH COSGROVE, as trustees of the Gerard V. Cosgrove

N
OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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: 1 Filed: 05/20/2020

IN RE: BODNAR
2
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.
O R D E R
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,
I
T IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

May 20, 2020
Date
FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s25
Case: 20-125 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2020