Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00362/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00362-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:741 Shipping

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LT. RICHARD T. GENGLER and LT.

DANIEL S. McSEVENEY,

Plaintiffs/Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THROUGH

ITS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND

NAVY,

Defendants/Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0362 OWW LJO

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE 

Further Scheduling

Conference: 12/13/06 8:45

Ctrm. 3

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

November 9, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP by Timothy R. Lord, Esq.

and Charles D. Weisselberg, Esq., appeared telephonically on

behalf of Plaintiffs.

Kimberly A. Gaab, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney,

appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Petitioners’ Contentions 

1. Petitioners incorporate herein the various pleadings,

Case 1:06-cv-00362-OWW Document 110 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

decisions and memoranda issued by this Court including the

Court’s recent Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The case

is before this Court on the Petitioners’ amended petitions for

writs of habeas corpus (Docs. 51, 52), which were filed on

September 15, 2006. The Petitioners contend that they are in the

custody of Respondents in violation of the Constitution and laws

of the United States, and that relief is appropriate under 28

U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition alleges two causes of action, one

based on a breach of the Petitioners’ Service Agreements with the

Navy and the other based upon principles of equitable estoppel.

Respondents’ Contentions

2. Respondents dispute Petitioners’ factual and legal

contentions, except as expressly set forth in paragraph 3(A)

below. Pursuant to the Court’s November 3, 2006 Memorandum

Decision and Order Denying United States’ Motion to Dismiss,

Respondents have 10 days from service of the order to answer the

amended habeas petition. Nothing in this joint scheduling

conference statement is intended to constitute a waiver of any

defense that may be asserted by Respondents. Respondents

specifically reserve all of their defenses in this action,

including without limitation their defenses of failure to state a

claim, estoppel, waiver and laches. This is not an exhaustive

list of Respondents’ defenses in this action. Respondents deny

all material allegations in the amended habeas petition.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00362-OWW Document 110 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. The Respondents do not contest the following

facts: On April 12, 1996, Petitioner Gengler signed an “Aviation

Officer Candidate (1395) Program Service Agreement,” which

contains a paragraph stating: “I consent to serve on active duty

as a commissioned officer for a period of seven years from date

of designation as a Naval Aviator (unless sooner released to

inactive duty or discharged by the Chief of Naval Personnel).” 

2. On April 18, 1996, Petitioner McSeveney signed an

“Aviation Officer Candidate (1395) Program Service Agreement,”

which contains a paragraph stating: “I consent to serve on active

duty as a commissioned officer for a period of seven years from

date of designation as a Naval Aviator (unless sooner released to

inactive duty or discharged by the Chief of Naval Personnel).”

3. Title 10 U.S.C. § 653 provides, in pertinent part:

“The minimum service obligation of any member who successfully

completes training in the armed forces as a pilot shall be 8

years, if the member is trained to fly fixed-wing jet

aircraft....”

4. Petitioners were trained to fly fixed-wing

aircraft within the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 653.

5. Petitioners requested to be discharged from the

military after serving the seven-year term referenced in the

Aviation Officer Candidate Program Service Agreements.

6. Petitioners’ requests to be discharged from the

military pursuant to the Aviation Officer Candidate Program

Case 1:06-cv-00362-OWW Document 110 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Service Agreements were denied.

B. Contested Facts.

1. All other factual matters are contested, including

whether Petitioners relied on alleged oral statements that they

would be discharged after seven years, whether Petitioners

unreasonably delayed in challenging the eight-year service

obligation set forth in 10 U.S.C. § 653, and the circumstances

under which other service personnel have been discharged from the

military. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. All legal issues are disputed, including whether

Petitioners can state a claim as a matter of law, and whether

Petitioners’ claims are barred under the doctrines of estoppel,

waiver and/or laches. 

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Schedule of Case.

1. After consulting with the parties, they believe that it

Case 1:06-cv-00362-OWW Document 110 Filed 11/09/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

is most efficient to complete responses to initial propounded

discovery, to receive the answer of the government to the

Petition, and to complete the depositions of the Plaintiffs. 

2. A Further Scheduling Conference shall be held on

December 13, 2006, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3 at which time the

final schedule for the case will be adopted. 

3. The parties further agree that responses to outstanding

discovery shall be filed on or before November 22, 2006. The

parties further agree that all responses to the complaint and

outstanding discovery to be made by the government shall be filed

on or before November 22, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00362-OWW Document 110 Filed 11/09/06 Page 5 of 5