November 21, 2024
2024.11.21-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on case status
November 7, 2024
2024.11.07-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on case status
August 28, 2024
2024.08.28-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on case status
July 29, 2024
Notice of the United States’ Position that an Estate Administrator is Not Necessary At the Time of Filing an Administrative Claim
As stated in the united States’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt 208), filed on 5/22/24, an estate does not need to be open to have the authority to file an administrative claim, recognizing the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Estate of Van Emburgh by and through Van Emburgh v. United States, 95 F.4th 795, 801 (4th Cir. 2024) as controlling authority. As the United States’ Response Brief explains, at pages 6-7:
“…In Van Emburgh, the administrative claims were submitted by the decedent’s daughter, who had not yet qualified as the estate representative. 95 F.4th at 798. The eventual plaintiff (the decedent’s spouse) was only appointed after the administrative claims were filed. Id. at 799. The Fourth Circuit rejected the government’s argument, based on regulations governing the filing of administrative claims, that the fact that the claims were originally filed by someone not appointed as a representative was a jurisdictional deficiency; the panel instead held that “Section 2675 does not empower the Attorney General or the Navy to adopt jurisdiction-defining requirements via regulation.” Id. at 802. Thus, the plaintiffs “did not need to satisfy the requirements set forth therein before filing suit in order for federal courts to have jurisdiction to review their claims.” Id. at 805.
So too here. Similar to Van Emburgh, the administrative claim was submitted by the Key Siblings, who had not yet qualified as estate representatives. The Key Siblings were only appointed after the administrative claim was filed. And although Navy regulations require that the Key Siblings qualify as estate representatives before filing their administrative claims, under Van Emburgh, the Key Siblings “d[o] not need to satisfy the requirements set forth therein before filing suit in order for federal courts to have jurisdiction to review their claims.” Id. at 805. As the United States [sic] has explained, see PLG Mem. at 7, n.3, the Fourth Circuit’s decision speaks for itself.”
July 17, 2024
2024.07.17-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on 07.16.2024 status conference
June 27, 2024
2024.06.27-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on 06.27.2024 status conference
June 13, 2024
2024.06.13-Letter to Counsel and Pro Se Plaintiffs – Update on 06.12.2024 status conference
June 1, 2024
Notice Regarding CLJA Claims Deadline
There are different views on when, and under what circumstances, a statute of limitations on claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act occurs. The Court has not ruled on this issue. It is the position of the Department of Justice that, as a threshold matter, all administrative claims must be presented to the Department of the Navy by August 10, 2024.
February 6, 2024
The court has issued an order granting the government’s motion arguing that Plaintiffs in the Camp Lejeune Water Litigation are not entitled to trials by jury. We have heard the disappointment from many claimants injured by the water on Camp Lejeune and understand their frustration—they have waited decades for their day in court and, since passage of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, have looked forward to trials by a jury of their peers.
The Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group believes that Congress intended to provide such trials and intends to appeal the decision of the Court. However, we cannot allow the government’s motion to delay progress. We will continue to push cases forward along all available avenues and to pursue trials as expeditiously as possible.
-Plaintiffs Leadership Group
Previous Announcements
On September 27, 2023, the Camp Lejeune Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel issued a Statement on the Court’s Case Management Order No. 2:
The Court’s Case Management Order lays out a forceful roadmap toward resolution for those who were injured by the water on Camp Lejeune and who have long waited to vindicate their rights. Plaintiffs’ Leadership proposed a litigation plan designed to advance these cases as fast as reasonably possible, and we are grateful that the Court has trusted us with the responsibility to execute it. We are eager to help deliver justice to all harmed while serving our country on Camp Lejeune.