United States Army

REPORTED ORDER Granting Motion to Remand Granting [8] Motion to Stay. The plaintiffs claim is REMANDED to the Secretary of the Army, who is directed to submit the matter to the ABCMR. The plaintiff shall apply to the ABCMR by filing a DD Form 149 with the ABCMR on or before 9/4/2020. The ABCMR shall determine by 11/30/2020 whether the Army committed an error or injustice. The defendant shall file by 12/14/2020, a status report. The ABCMR shall render its decision by 2/22/2021. The defendant shall file a status report informing the Court of the ultimate determination of the ABCMR by 3/8/2021. The case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard A. Hertling. (agg) Service on parties made.

Husband, a member of the United States Army, and Wife divorced. The trial court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement pay, including his VA disability pay. Husband took issue with the trial court's method of calculating Wife's share of his retirement pay, as well as its determinations as to the residential parenting schedule and child support obligations. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and vacate in part.

Opinion and Order: granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis granting [10] Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) REPORTED OPINION The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. (ac7) Service on parties made.

<p>For the purpose of the decision in this case it is necessary-only to state: That this is an action for accounting brought by the plaintiff, Pearce, against the defendants Sutherland and the Alaska Perseverance Mining Company, a corporation, upon the theory that the defendant corporation is a holding company for the defendant Sutherland. That a partnership agreement for the purchase and sale of certain mining property was entered into between the plaintiff and Sutherland, and the defendant corporation was subsequently organized to hold the legal title of the said property for the partnership. That after the plaintiff Pearce was discharged by the corporation as superintendent of their property in Alaska, and after he had brought an action against the defendants herein, a compromise agreement in writing was entered into upon mutual and valuable considerations between the parties herein at Vancouver, B. C., on July 21, 1906, which covered every transaction between them in the greatest detail. That after plaintiff had received the consideration of $5,000 under the compromise agreement, and upon failure of the defendant to make the payment due December 15, 1906, the plaintiff attempted to rescind the agreement and filed the original bill in this action in this court in April, 1907. After subsequent amendments his third amended bill was before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, on an appeal from this court sustaining the demurrers to the bill. 164 Fed. 609, 90 C. C. A. 519. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the plaintiff to amend, and the complaint in this action and the present bill was then filed.</p> <p>The defendants filed their separate answers, to which the plaintiffs entered their demurrers and replies, and the case came on for hearing with the understanding that the court reserve decision on the demurrers. The case came on for hearing before this court, without a jury, on the 16th day of May, 1910, and thereafter contin