there is a dispute about the equivalence of the positions, the employee’s appeal is not moot. See Kerr v. Nat’l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730, 733 & n. 3 (Fed.Cir.1984) (“The injured party is to be placed, as near as may be, in the situation he would have occupied if the wrong had not been committed.” (quoting Wicker v. Hoppock, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 94, 99, 18 L.Ed. 752 (1867))). Thus, the lack of equivalence in the positions was certainly a proper issue to raise in the first appeal. Petitioners’ problem is that they chose to raise the issue of their transfer to Letter Carrier positions in a separate appeal, which has now been resolved adversely. Under such circumstances, this aspect of the original appeal becomes moot. See generally In re Scruggs, 392 F.3d 124, 129 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Petitioners have received the amount of back
recognizing that the claim at issue was one under state common law between two private parties the experts in the federal system at resolving common law counterclaims  are the article iii courts holding an intervenor in the underlying district court case lacked article iii standing to pursue an appeal where the only remaining controversy in the suit was a dispute over the award of attorneys fees because the fee award was wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation holding that article iii requires a live controversy at every stage of litigation holding that the exercise of judicial power under article iii of the united states constitution requires an actual case or controversy holding that where a judgment in another matter lying at the heart of the federal litigation at issue became final and no longer appealable  the article iii case or controversy in the federal courts ceased to exist