Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01196-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

STIPULATION AND ORDER PERMITTING THE FILING OF 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

GEORGE A. ROBERTS, ESQ. 

SBN 77916

301 Broad Street

Nevada City, CA 95959

Telephone (530) 265-3279

Facsimile (530)265-6051

Attorney for plaintiff General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”

YEAGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN YEAGER, 

YEAGER, INC., 

SCOTT ROBERTSON, 

ROBERTSON and WOODFORD, LLP, 

AND DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 2:06-CV-01196-DFLPAN(JFM)

STIPULATION AND ORDER

PERMITTING THE FILING OF THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by an between all of the parties, through

their respective counsel of record, that Plaintiff General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager may lodge

with the court a Third Amended Complaint, attached to this stipulation. All parties stipulate that

this Third Amended Complaint may be filed without a scheduled motion.

All parties also stipulate that each party shall have 30 days in which to file a responsive

pleading and/or motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. The Third Amended

Complaint is deemed to be served as of November 1, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 18
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER PERMITTING THE FILING OF 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/8/06 /s/George A. Roberts

Date: 

George A. Roberts

Attorney for Plaintiff

General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager

10/31/06 /s/Robert H. Johnson

Date: 

Johnson Schachter & Lewis

Robert H. Johnson

Attorney for Defendants

Scott Robertson and 

Robertson Woodford, LLP

10/26/06 /s/Audrey A. Millemann

Date: 

Weintraub Genshlea Chediak

Audrey A. Millemann

Attorney for Defendants

Susan Yeager, Sharon Yeager-Flick,

Donald Yeager, and Michael Yeager

11/1/06 /s/Peter Glick

Date: 

Peter E. Glick

Attorney for Defendant

Yeager, Inc.

It is so ordered.

Date: November 9, 2006 

/s/ David F. Levi 

Honorable David F. Levi

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 1 -

GEORGE A. ROBERTS, ESQ. 

SBN 77916

301 Broad Street

Nevada City, CA 95959

Telephone (530) 265-3279

Facsimile (530)265-6051

Attorney for plaintiff General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT

NINTH CIRCUIT, EASTERN DISTRICT

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”

YEAGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN YEAGER, 

YEAGER, INC., 

SCOTT ROBERTSON, 

ROBERTSON and WOODFORD, LLP, 

AND DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 2:06-CV-01196-DFL-PAN(JFM)

(PROPOSED) THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

1. FAILURE TO FUND DEFINED

BENEFIT PENSION PLAN (ERISA)

2. ACCOUNTANT BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY

3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(TRUSTEE OF DEFINED BENEFIT

PENSION PLAN) 

4. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(YEAGER REVOCABLE LIVING

TRUST)

5. NEGLIGENT ACCOUNTING

PRACTICES

6. CONSPIRACY

7. CONVERSION

8. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT

AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

9. ACCOUNTING FOR DEFINED

BENEFIT PENSION PLAN

10. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” YEAGER, alleges as follows:

1. This action is brought pursuant to 29 USC section 1144(a) and 29 USC section

1132(a)(1).

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 2 -

2. Plaintiff, GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” YEAGER was at all times relevant the 

sole beneficiary of the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

3. Plaintiff is a 20 percent minority shareholder of Yeager, Inc.

4. Does 1 through 10 are individuals and/or business entities of unknown legal status

who in some way have participated in the conduct described below. Plaintiff reserves the right to

amend this complaint by naming specific Doe defendants 1 through 10.

5. Defendant Yeager, Inc. is a closely held subchapter S corporation, incorporated and

authorized to do business in the state of California.

6. The Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan was established on or about 

February 1, 1981, by a resolution of the board of directors of Yeager, Inc.

7. Defendant Susan Yeager is a 20 percent shareholder of Yeager, Inc., and at times

relevant to the allegations contained in this complaint acted as the chief financial officer of

Yeager, Inc. Defendant Susan Yeager is a resident of Hawaii. 

8. Defendant Susan Yeager, at times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, served

as a member of the board of directors of Yeager, Inc. at various times, and held various positions

as corporate officer. 

9. Defendant Susan Yeager, at times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, acted as

trustee for the Charles E.Yeager Revocable Living Trust.

10. Defendant Susan Yeager, at times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, acted

as trustee for the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

11. Defendant Susan Yeager acted as investment advisor for the Yeager, Inc. Defined

Benefit Pension Plan.

12. At all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, Defendant Susan Yeager

continuously interchanged the terms “Family Trust” and “Pension Plan” when discussing her

various actions with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that this was a deliberate calculation on behalf of

Susan Yeager to conceal from Plaintiff the true financial status of these two entities. 

13. Michael Yeager is a 20 percent shareholder of Yeager, Inc.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 3 -

14. Donald Yeager is a 20 percent shareholder of Yeager, Inc., and has at times relevant

to the allegations in this complaint served as a member of the board of directors. Donald Yeager

is a resident of Colorado. 

15. Sharon Yeager is a 20 percent shareholder of Yeager, Inc., and has at times relevant

to the allegations in this complaint served as a member of the board of directors. Sharon Yeager

is a resident of Nevada. 

16. Scott Robertson is a CPA who at times relevant to the allegations in this complaint

served in the following capacities:

A. Accountant for Susan Yeager.

B. Accountant for Yeager, Inc.

C. Accountant for the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust

D. Accountant for the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

E. Accountant for Plaintiff individually

F. Accountant for Michael Yeager

G. Accountant for Donald Yeager

H. Accountant for Sharon Yeager

I. Accountant for Tri-Y-F Partnership

17. Defendant Robertson and Woodford, LLP, at times relevant to the allegations in this

complaint, was a limited liability partnership, wherein Scott Robertson was a partner.

18. Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FAILURE TO FUND DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN

(Defendant Yeager, Inc.)

19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation made in paragraphs 1 through 18. 

(General Allegations)

20. During the time Susan Yeager was the trustee of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan,

she failed to adequately account to the beneficiary regarding the financial status of the Defined

Benefit Pension Plan.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 4 -

21. At all times Susan Yeager was acting as trustee of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan,

she also was the chief financial officer of Yeager, Inc., with the day to day obligations to meet

the financial requirements of the corporation.

22. Defendant Yeager, Inc. failed to provide adequate funding to the Defined Benefit

Pension Plan. At all times during which the under funding occurred, Defendant Yeager, Inc. had

sufficient discretionary assets available to fully fund the Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

23. As a result of the actions of each of the above named Defendants, Plaintiff has been

damaged by the under funding of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan, in an amount as yet

unascertained but according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiff also is expected to incur

penalties and interest for the under funding, which was the direct result of Yeager, Inc., in an

amount according to proof at the time of trial.

24. Plaintiff was not aware of the facts supporting the allegations of this cause of action

until after January 2004, due to the active concealment by Defendant Susan Yeager and

Defendant Scott Robertson.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ACCOUNTANT BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(Scott Robertson, Robertson & Woodford LLP) 

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18 and 20 through 24 of this complaint.

26. Defendants Scott Robertson and Robertson and Woodford owed a fiduciary

obligation to their client, Chuck E. Yeager. Defendant Scott Robertson was a certified public

accountant and partner of Robertson and Woodford, both of which owed undivided obligation

and loyalty to protect the financial interests of Plaintiff.

27. Defendants had a further fiduciary obligation to affirmatively inform Plaintiff of any

detrimental effects of Defendants’ recommendations for tax planning, estate planning,

investment vehicles, and accounting procedures.

28. Defendants further had a fiduciary obligation to decline any professional engagement

of any individuals or entities having any conflict of interest with the position of Plaintiff.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 5 -

29. Defendants breached their respective duties owed to Plaintiff in the following ways:

A. Defendants failed to timely file personal income tax returns for Plaintiff, and failed to

make reasonable inquiries directed to their client, Plaintiff, regarding the reasons for

delay. These failures occurred at times when these Defendants were in an ongoing

professional relationship with Plaintiff.

B. These Defendants failed to inform their client, Plaintiff, that the Yeager, Inc. Defined

Benefit Pension Plan was being inadequately funded. This failure extended over a period

of years, and during which time Defendants Scott Robertson and Robertson and

Woodford were also professionally employed by Yeager, Inc. and by Defendant Susan

Yeager personally. During this period of time, Defendant Susan Yeager was the financial

officer of Yeager, Inc. and trustee of the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. 

Defendant Susan Yeager was also the trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living

Trust.

C. These Defendants billed for and attempted to create investment vehicles which were

detrimental to their client, Plaintiff, and for the intended benefit of Susan Yeager, Sharon

Yeager-Flick, Michael Yeager, and Donald Yeager. During this period of time, these

Defendants failed to inform their client, Plaintiff, that they were performing services at

the direction of their other client, Defendant Susan Yeager, which services were intended

to create investment vehicles detrimental to the best interest of their client, Plaintiff.

D. Defendants failed to inform their client, Plaintiff, of improper financial transactions

involving Defendants’ other client, Susan Yeager personally, and in her capacity as

Trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust. This failure to inform Plaintiff

continued even after Defendants had actual knowledge of the improper transactions

which were harmful to Plaintiff.

E. These Defendants failed to advise their client, Plaintiff, that another of their clients,

Susan Yeager, in her capacity as chief financial officer of Yeager, Inc. was failing to fund

the Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 7 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 6 -

F. These Defendants failed to advise their client, Plaintiff, that their other clients, Susan

Yeager, and Yeager, Inc. were not preparing the necessary federal income tax returns,

which would have disclosed the inadequate funding.

30. During the period of time in which the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was

underfunded, Defendant Scott Robertson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to protect the

financial interest of his client, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, who was a beneficiary of the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that for all years in

which the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was underfunded, Defendant Robertson failed to apply

generally accepted accounting principles in acting as accountant for the Yeager, Inc. Defined

Benefit Pension Plan, and as accountant for Yeager, Inc.

31. Defendants Scott Robertson and Robertson and Woodford, LLP breached their

respective fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by failing to inform their client, General Charles E.

“Chuck”Yeager, that the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was being underfunded by another of

their clients, Yeager, Inc.

32. As a direct result of Defendants’ breach of their fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff,

Plaintiff was required to pursue legal action against Defendant Susan Yeager for recovery of her

unjust enrichment at the expense of Plaintiff. The attorneys fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff

which were proximately caused by these Defendants exceed $175,000. The exact amount of

damages are not yet known to Plaintiff, but will be according to proof at the time of trial.

33. Defendants Scott Robertson and Susan Yeager also conspired to have Defendant

Susan Yeager pay herself an exorbitant “management fee” from the Charles E.Yeager Revocable

Living Trust and the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. These exorbitant fees were

proposed by Defendant Scott Robertson, and were to the detriment of Plaintiff, to whom

Defendant Scott Robertson owed a fiduciary duty. 

34. Plaintiff was not aware of the facts supporting the allegations of this cause of action

until after January 2004, due to the active concealment by Defendant Susan Yeager and

Defendant Scott Robertson.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 8 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 7 -

35. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unascertained, but according to proof 

at the time of trial.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 

(TRUSTEE OF DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN)

(Susan Yeager)

36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

through 18 of this complaint. 

37. As trustee of the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, Defendant Susan Yeager

owed an undivided loyalty to maximize the income and investments of the Defined Benefits

Pension Plan, and to avoid any financial conflict with any other entity or person. 

38. As trustee of the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, Defendant Susan Yeager

breached her duty by making investments inconsistent with the prudent person rule, and by

diverting money intended for the Defined Benefit Pension Plan into other accounts and entities

for her own financial benefit, and for the financial benefit of Sharon Yeager-Flick, Donald

Yeager, Michael Yeager, Cynthia Siegfried, and Scott Robertson.

39. As trustee and financial advisor to the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan,

Defendant Susan Yeager paid herself an unauthorized, exorbitant “salary” for her amateur

financial “advice.” 

40. As a result of the breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as

yet unascertained, but according to proof at the time of the trial. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

(Defendant Susan Yeager as trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust)

41. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

through 18 of the complaint. 

42. As Trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust, Defendant Suasan

Yeager breached her duty by making investments inconsistent with a prudent person rule by

investing in unacceptably risky investments. Defendant Susan Yeager further breached her

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 9 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 8 -

fiduciary duty by disbursing funds from the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust to various

family members without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, and in violation of the written

constraints contained in the trust document. 

43. As trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust, Defendant Susan Yeager

breached her duty by failing to place or transfer all of Plaintiff’s property into the trust as was

required by the terms of the trust. Plaintiff specifically instructed Susan Yeager to take such

action. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Susan Yeager failed to transfer all of the assets, and has

concealed those assets which were not placed into the trust.

44. As trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust, Defendant Susan Yeager

breached her duty by causing assets and income derived by and created by Plaintiff to be placed

into the name of Yeager, Inc. rather than into the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust. 

This was a violation of the fiduciary obligation Susan Yeager owed to the Charles E. Yeager

Revocable Living Trust, and in violation of the understanding and instructions of Plaintiff.

45. As a result of this breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount

as yet unascertained, but according to proof at the time of the trial. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT ACCOUNTING PRACTICES

(Scott Robertson and Robertson and Woodford)

46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18, 20 though 24, and 26 through 35 of the complaint.

47. Defendant Scott Robertson failed to provide adequate accounting services to

Plaintiff. The failures included the failure to personally confirm financial information, failure to

have personal tax returns for Plaintiff filed on time, and failure to prevent late fees from being

assessed by various taxing agencies against Plaintiff.

48. Defendant Scott Robertson also failed to provide adequate accounting services to

Yeager, Inc. and to the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. The failure to provide

adequate accounting services allowed his other client, Defendant Susan Yeager, to under fund the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and allowed co-Defendant Susan Yeager to make dividend

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 10 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 9 -

payments from Yeager, Inc. to various other clients of Scott Robertson, including Sharon Yeager

Flick, Michael Yeager, and Susan Yeager. Defendant also failed to inform his client, Plaintiff,

that another of his clients, Susan Yeager, was improperly withdrawing and using funds from the

Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust for her own benefit, to purchase certain “Penn Valley

property.”

49. During the period of time in which the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was

underfunded, Defendant Scott Robertson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to protect the

financial interest of his client, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, who was a beneficiary of the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that for all years in

which the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was underfunded, Defendant Robertson failed to apply

generally accepted accounting principles in acting as accountant for the Yeager, Inc. Defined

Benefit Pension Plan, and as accountant for Yeager, Inc.

50. Defendants Scott Robertson and Robertson and Woodford, LLP breached their

respective fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff by failing to inform their client, General Charles E.

“Chuck”Yeager, that the Defined Benefit Pension Plan was being underfunded by another of

their clients, Yeager, Inc.

51. Defendant Scott Robertson also failed to provide adequate accounting services to his

client, Plaintiff, regarding tax ramifications of certain real estate gifts and/or transfers. These

gifts and/or transfers of real estate were transacted by Defendant Susan Yeager. Defendant Scott

Robertson, in his conflicting roles as accountant for Susan Yeager, accountant for The Yeager,

Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, and accountant for Plaintiff, failed in his fiduciary duty to

give the most accurate and beneficial accounting advice to Plaintiff. 

52. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount as yet unknown, but

according to proof at the time of trial. Damages include, but are not limited to Internal Revenue

Service fines, and legal fees incurred by Plaintiff in attempting to get a full accounting from

Defendant Susan Yeager, and to recover from Susan Yeager improper profits related to the “Penn

Valley Property.”

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 11 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 10 -

53. Plaintiff was not aware of the facts supporting the allegations of this cause of action

until after January 2004, due to the active concealment by Defendant Susan Yeager and

Defendant Scott Robertson.

54. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unascertained, but according to proof

at the time of trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSPIRACY

(Scott Robertson, Susan Yeager, and Does 1 through 5)

55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18, 20 through 24, and 25 through 35 of the complaint.

56. In 2001 and 2002, Defendants Susan Yeager, Scott Robertson and Does 1 through 5

conspired to wrongfully deprive Plaintiff of financial control over his own assets.

57. The conspiratorial acts included secret meetings between Defendant Susan Yeager

and Defendant Scott Robertson, during which times each of these Defendants owed a continuing

fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing to Plaintiff . 

58. The conspiratorial acts also included agreements between and among these

Defendants to withhold financial information from Plaintiff, to create financial vehicles for

Plaintiff, which in fact were for the benefit of Defendant Susan Yeager and her siblings, Donald

Yeager, Michael Yeager, and Sharon Yeager Flick, and detrimental to Plaintiff. Defendant Scott

Robertson billed Plaintiff for services which in fact were designed to deprive Plaintiff of control

of his assets, for the benefit of co-Defendant Susan Yeager. 

59. Defendants Scott Robertson and Susan Yeager also conspired to have Defendant

Susan Yeager pay herself an exorbitant “management fee” from the Charles E. Yeager Revocable

Living Trust and the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. These exorbitant fees were

proposed by Defendant Scott Robertson, and were to the detriment of Plaintiff, to whom

Defendant Scott Robertson owed a fiduciary duty. 

60. Plaintiff was not aware of the facts supporting the allegations of this cause of action

until after January 2004, due to the active concealment by Defendant Susan Yeager and

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 12 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 11 -

Defendant Scott Robertson. The actions of defendants Susan Yeager and Scott Robertson were

extreme and outrageous, intentional, and done with malice. These actions justify the award of

punitive damages.

61. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unascertained, but according to proof

at the time of trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONVERSION

(Susan Yeager)

62. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18 of the complaint.

63. Defendant Susan Yeager in 2001 and/or 2002 transferred in excess of $11,000 to

Defendant Scott Robertson. The funds were paid from assets rightfully belonging to Plaintiff. 

The amount paid to Scott Robertson was in excess of any legitimate fee for bookkeeping services

allegedly to be performed for the benefit of Plaintiff.

64. Defendant Susan Yeager also made an unauthorized “bonus payment” to a former

employee of Yeager, Inc., Cindy Siegfried. Plaintiff was not aware of this improper payment

until the year 2004.

65. Defendant Susan Yeager paid to herself exorbitant “management fees” for

“managing” the funds of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living Trust and the Yeager Defined

Benefit Pension Plan, with such payments being made without the informed consent of Plaintiff. 

Defendant Susan Yeager also caused financial losses to these two entities by negligent

investments.

66. Defendant Susan Yeager converted corporate funds by disbursing “dividends” in

2001 to herself, Donald Yeager, Sharon Yeager Flick, and Michael Yeager. At the time of the

transfer of these corporate funds, the corporation owed back obligations to the Yeager, Inc.

Defined Benefit Pension Plan, for which Plaintiff was the sole beneficiary.

67. Susan Yeager for many years disbursed funds from the Charles E. Yeager Revocable

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 13 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 12 -

Living Trust for payment of homeowners insurance on certain “Penn Valley” property, during

which time she was the legal owner of the property. Susan Yeager misrepresented to State Farm

and its agents that Plaintiff was the owner of the house, and requested that the policy be issued

naming Plaintiff as the “owner.”

68. Susan Yeager also illegally “gifted” trust assets to herself, her siblings, and various

family relatives in violation of her duties as co-trustee of the Charles E. Yeager Revocable Living

Trust, and in violation of the specific terms of the Trust.

69. The actions of defendant Susan Yeager were extreme and outrageous, intentional,

and done with malice. These actions justify the award of punitive damages.

70. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unascertained, but according to proof

at the time of trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Susan Yeager and Yeager, Inc.)

71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1 

through 18 of the complaint.

72. Yeager, Inc., through its chief financial officer, Susan Yeager, with the consent, and

approval of the board of directors members, arbitrarily and without legal justification caused

Yeager, Inc. to drastically reduce the “salary” of Plaintiff, without his knowledge. This “salary

reduction” was designed by Defendant Susan Yeager to increase corporate funds available for

“dividend” payments to Defendant Susan Yeager and her three siblings. This diversion was

concealed from Plaintiff, who suffered a loss of salary in an amount as yet unascertained, but

according to proof at the time of trial. Defendant Susan Yeager, as chief financial officer of

Yeager, Inc., also failed to pay salary related to Charles E. Yeager signing additional

memorabilia which memorabilia was later transferred to Aviation Autographs. The agreement

between Plaintiff and Yeager, Inc. was that he would receive $50 per signature plus one-third of

the value of the memorabilia sold.

73. As a result of the actions of these co-Defendants, Plaintiff was damaged in an amount

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 14 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 13 -

according to proof at the time of trial.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ACCOUNTING FOR DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN

(Yeager, Inc)

74. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18 of the complaint.

75. Plaintiff has requested and demanded an accounting of the Defined Benefit Pension

Plan, to be provided by the board of directors and/or officers of Yeager, Inc. 

76. Defendants have failed and refused to get an accounting of monies owed to the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan. 

77. Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting, as he is the sole remaining beneficiary of the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Plaintiff does not have independent access to the financial records

of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

(Yeager, Inc.)

78. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each allegation in paragraphs 1

through 18, 20 through 24, and 26 through 35 of the complaint.

79. Defendant Susan Yeager has been the chief financial officer of Yeager, Inc at all

times relevant to the circumstances described in this complaint.

80. Yeager, Inc. has certain assets, including cash, investments, memorabilia

commemorating the events of Plaintiff’s life and an income stream resulting solely from the

efforts of Plaintiff.

81. Plaintiff alleges that Yeager, Inc. is obligated for under funding the Yeager, Inc.

Defined Benefit Pension Plan in an amount in excess of $300,000.

82. Defendant Susan Yeager and the current board of directors continue to control the

management of Yeager, Inc. as majority shareholders and directors and officers of the

corporation.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 15 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 14 -

83. Defendant Susan Yeager, in her capacity as chief financial officer has continued to

make “dividend payments” to herself and her siblings while failing to provide payments to the

under funded Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

84. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, prohibiting

Defendant Yeager, Inc. from making any further disbursals of corporate funds for any of the

following purposes:

A. Any payment to any of the shareholders for any “dividends.”

B. Payment to any shareholder for any “bookkeeping” services or other alleged

“services” to the corporation.

85. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction prohibiting

Yeager, Inc. from marketing any memorabilia belonging to the corporation. Plaintiff alleges that

marketing of the assets of the corporation has been conducted in a way beneficial to friends and

acquaintances of Defendant Susan Yeager, but not for the best interest of the corporation.

86. Plaintiff asks that the above requested temporary restraining orders and injunctive

relief stay in place until trial on the merits.

87. Plaintiff alleges that the temporary restraining order and injunctive relief are

necessary to avoid irreparable harm. The irreparable harm will result if corporate assets are

diminished before full payment for the under funding of the Defined Benefit Pension Plan is

completed, and until all taxes and penalties relating to Yeager, Inc., Plaintiff, and the Defined

Benefit Pension Plan are paid in full.

88. No adequate legal remedy exists in an award of damages if the corporate funds and

assets are dissipated without payment of the above described tax obligations and payments to the

Defined Benefit Pension Plan.

89. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount as yet unascertained, but according to proof

at the time of trial.

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 16 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 15 -

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. First Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

2. Second Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

3. Third Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

4. Fourth Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

5. Fifth Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

6. Sixth Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

b. For punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial;

7. Seventh Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

b. For punitive damages according to proof at the time of trial;

8. Eighth Cause of Action

a. For damages according to proof at the time of trial;

9. Ninth Cause of Action

a. For a full accounting of the Yeager, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, to be provided 

by Defendant, Yeager, Inc.

10. Tenth Cause of Action

a. For a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to restrain Defendant

Yeager, Inc. from liquidating any assets or paying any shareholder dividends.

11. All Causes of Action

a. For attorneys fees according to proof at the time of trial;

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 17 of 18
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

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

- 16 -

b. For costs incurred herein; and

c. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

d. Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

Date: 

George A. Roberts

Attorney for Plaintiff

General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager

Case 2:06-cv-01196-JAM-EFB Document 51 Filed 11/13/06 Page 18 of 18