DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: June 25, 2019
CBCA 6428
BOHNER PAINTING LLP,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Respondent.
Lori M. Bohner, Owner of Bohner Painting LLP, Humansville, MO, appearing for
Appellant.
Paul Sax, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Lakewood, CO,
counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DRUMMOND, SHERIDAN, and O’ROURKE.
DRUMMOND, Board Judge.
This appeal arises out of a contract between Bohner Painting, LLP (Bohner) and the
Department of the Interior, National Parks Service (Interior), for painting services in Hope,
Arkansas. 
On May 16, 2019, the Board received a motion from Interior requesting dismissal of
this appeal with prejudice, along with an executed settlement agreement and release of claims
(agreement) stating the appeal had been settled and that Bohner has been paid the full
settlement amount in exchange for expressly releasing Interior from all claims and agreeing
to execute closeout and modification documents consistent with the settlement agreement. 


CBCA 6428 2
Interior represents that the appeal is now moot, but Bohner refuses to execute a joint motion
for dismissal with prejudice and instead insists on new conditions that are beyond the scope
of this appeal and inconsistent with the signed agreement.    
By order dated May 17, 2019, the Board directed Bohner to file a statement advising
the Board whether or not it objected to dismissal of the appeal with prejudice.  Bohner
responded that it opposes dismissal with prejudice due to concerns about possible future
governmental interference with its bids and work.  Bohner did not dispute that it has been
paid the full settlement amount and that it expressly released Interior from further liability. 
Interior, in a motion filed on June 10, 2019, repeated its request that the Board dismiss
this appeal with prejudice, asserting that Bohner’s objection is without merit, baseless, and
beyond the scope of this appeal.  Interior argues that because Bohner executed a settlement
agreement and provided Interior with a release, there is nothing for the Board to decide in
this appeal and therefore dismissal with prejudice is appropriate.   Bohner has not responded 
to Interior’s June 10, 2019, motion. 
It is well settled that 
where the appellant joins in a settlement of the matter in dispute, “the case has
become moot as a result of the voluntary act of the [appellant].”  Aqua Marine
Supply v. AIM Machining, Inc., 247 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  While
there may be some room for disagreement about whether and when dismissal
of a case before the Board that becomes moot should be with prejudice or
without prejudice, see Sylvan B. Orr v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA
5299, [16-1 BCA ¶ 36,522, at 177,931-32], it is clear that, when mootness
results from a bilateral settlement through which “the claims are permanently
withdrawn, ‘a dismissal with prejudice is indicated.”  Smith International, Inc.
v. Hughes Tool Co., 839 F. 2d  663, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Deakins v.
Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 200 (1988)).  
Ralph Muhammad v. Department of Justice, CBCA 5188, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,541, at 178,020. 
Given that Bohner has executed a bilateral settlement agreement and release, there is
nothing left for us to decide.  Because the mootness here arises out a bilateral settlement
between the parties, we dismiss this appeal with prejudice.

CBCA 6428 3
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
  Jerome M. Drummond 
JEROME M. DRUMMOND
Board Judge
We concur:
  Patricia J. Sheridan          Kathleen J. O’Rourke     
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge Board Judge