Almy et al v. United States Department of Defense et al
Filing
31
RESPONSE (re 30 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Complaint ) filed byDepartment of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, Michael B. Donley, Robert M. Gates, Ray Mabus, United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Trail Transcript, Witt v. Dep't of the Air Force)(Parker, Ryan) (Filed on 4/13/2011)
1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MAJOR MARGARET WITT,
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellee,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE )
AIR FORCE; ROBERT M. GATES,
)
Secretary of Defense; MICHAEL B.)
DONLEY, Secretary of the
)
Department of Air Force;
)
and COLONEL JANETTE L.
)
MOORE-HARBERT, Commander,
)
446th Aeromedical Evacuation
)
Squadron, McChord AFB,
)
)
Defendants-Appellants. )
)
For the Plaintiff:
COA# 10-36079
VOLUME 1
JAMES E. LOBSENZ
Carney Badley Spellman
701 Fifth Avenue, Ste 3600
Seattle, Washington 98104-7010
SARAH DUNNE
SHER KUNG
American Civil Liberties Union
of Washington
901 Fifth Avenue, Ste 630
Seattle, Washington 98164
21
22
25
September 13, 2010
APPEARANCES:
20
24
Tacoma, Washington
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
19
23
Docket No. C06-5195RBL
Court Reporter:
Teri Hendrix
Union Station Courthouse, Rm 3130
1717 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma, Washington 98402
(253) 882-3831
2
1
APPEARANCES- CONTINUED
2
3
4
5
For the Defendants:
PETER J. PHIPPS
BRYAN R. DIEDERICH
STEPHEN J. BUCKINGHAM
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division Federal Programs
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Also Present:
LT. COLONEL TODI CARNES
United States Air Force
1777 N. Kent St., Suite 11400
Rosslyn, VA 22209
Court Reporter:
Teri Hendrix
Union Station Courthouse, Rm 3130
1717 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma, Washington 98402
(253) 882-3831
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by Reporter on computer.
3
1
T A B L E
2
5
6
C O N T E N T S
VOLUME 1
September 13, 2010
3
4
O F
OPENING STATEMENTS
PAGE
Ms. Dunne........................................8
Mr. Phipps......................................19
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TESTIMONY
PAGE
JAMES SCHAFFER
Direct Examination By Ms. Dunne................
Cross-Examination By Mr. Buckingham............
Examination By the Court.......................
JENNY KOPFSTEIN
Direct Examination By Ms. Kung.................
Cross-Examination By Mr. Diederich.............
VINCENT ODA
Direct Examination By Mr. Lobsenz..............
Cross-Examination By Mr. Diederich.............
Examination By the Court.......................
Redirect Examination By Mr. Lobsenz............
DARREN MANZELLA
Direct Examination By Ms. Kung.................
35
86
98
103
144
146
169
172
173
174
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 29, 30 to 33, 35 to 37, ...
40 to 53, 56 to 59, 63 to 64, 66 to 69, 73, 75
to 80, 87 to 89, 104, 106 to 110, 113 to 114,
117, 119 to 120, 122 to 123, 125,
Exhibit Nos. A-1, A-4 through A-7, A-9 through ...
A-11, A-13, A-14 through A-18, A-20 to A-34, and
A-37 to A-40
Exhibit No. 142 ..................................
Exhibit No. 72 ...................................
34
34
116
134
4
1
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 - 9:30 A.M.
2
*
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
4
THE CLERK:
This is in Cause No. C06-5195RBL, Major
5
6
*
*
*
*
Good morning.
Margaret Witt versus Department of the Air Force, et al.
Counsel, please make their appearances.
7
MR. LOBSENZ:
Good morning, Your Honor.
8
for Major Witt.
9
Kung and our legal assistant.
10
MR. PHIPPS:
Jim Lobsenz
With me at counsel table, Sarah Dunne, Sher
Good morning.
Peter Phipps from the
11
Department of Justice representing defendants.
12
Bryan Diederich and Mr. Steve Buckingham from the United
13
States Department of Justice.
14
is Lieutenant Colonel Todi Carnes from the U.S. Air Force.
15
16
THE COURT:
I am joined by
Also with me at counsel table
All right.
This matter comes on for trial.
Before opening statements
17
I was told there was a matter of clarification from the
18
Court's earlier order regarding issues of back pay and
19
retirement credit.
20
record?
21
22
23
Do you want to make a statement for the
MR. PHIPPS:
Yes.
I do thank you very much for the
opportunity.
There is a point we need to make, and we think we need to
24
make it before the trial commences because it is in some way
25
jurisdictional.
It relates, as you said, to the Court's order
5
1
2
of last week; specifically, with respect to jurisdiction.
Now, let me just back up and say, on Friday counsel for
3
both sides had a very productive conversation on this issue;
4
nonetheless I still feel the need to put this on the record
5
before commencement of trial.
6
On pages 1 and 2 of the Court's order, the Court indicated
7
that the parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction over
8
this case.
9
characterization.
Respectfully, we take issue with that
Again, this jurisdictional point is
10
complicated, but just to clarify that, whether the Court has
11
jurisdiction, depends on a statute under which plaintiff
12
proceeds.
13
And there's a question given plaintiff's statements in her
14
motion for summary judgment regarding the type of relief that
15
she seeks, whether or not she's proceeding under the
16
Administrative Procedures Act, the little Tucker Act, or
17
sometimes called the big Tucker Act.
18
Our belief is this:
As the Court suggests in its order
19
that plaintiff could get relief from her claims in the Court
20
of Federal Claims, at any point, even after this trial has
21
concluded, then there's no jurisdiction over this case under
22
the APA, because plaintiff would have an adequate remedy
23
elsewhere.
24
25
It is true that -- and our position is that the plaintiff
needs to elect her remedy.
That's what we ask plaintiff to
6
1
do, just to clarify that, and to be certain.
2
and I think both parties are going to agree, we don't want a
3
jurisdictional cloud to hang over this case in any way.
4
Our concern is,
The Court said in the pretrial conference it wanted an
5
upward trajectory for this case and we concur with that, but
6
just to be certain, each one of these -- the APA, the little
7
Tucker Act, and the big Tucker Act -- has different
8
consequences.
9
under the APA, waiver of sovereign immunity, and isn't seeking
If the plaintiff says she's proceeding only
10
monetary relief or monetary damages, then the case is as it
11
was in the complaint and we don't see a jurisdictional concern
12
here.
13
Now, the second option, if plaintiff is proceeding under
14
the little Tucker Act seeking damages under $10,000, then we
15
can proceed here today, but little Tucker Act claims must go
16
directly to the federal circuit, not the Ninth Circuit, and
17
that has a dramatic effect on the governing law of this case,
18
is the government's position.
19
Lastly, if plaintiff attempts to make allegations or seek
20
relief that would put her under the jurisdiction of the big
21
Tucker Act, then our position is certainly the Court doesn't
22
have jurisdiction; that's classic federal Court of Claims
23
points.
24
25
So, essentially what we wanted to do was highlight that by
way of clarification, make certain our position that if
7
1
plaintiff proceeds here, that's an election of remedies under
2
the APA and there wouldn't be the opportunity to go take a
3
second bite of the apple.
4
wanted to respond.
5
THE COURT:
So it's a clarification and we
Thank you, Mr. Phipps.
6
respond, Mr. Lobsenz?
7
MR. LOBSENZ:
Do you want to
If I could, briefly, I agree we had a
8
pretty productive conversation on Friday.
I think he has
9
people that he has to seek authority from, back in Washington,
10
D.C., but as soon as I have confirmation, I can confirm that
11
we are withdrawing any claim for relief under the little
12
Tucker Act or any claim for monetary relief, and proceeding
13
under the APA. I just felt that we owed to it you to explain,
14
Mr. Phipps has explained 28 U.S.C. Section 1491(A)(2) would
15
indicate if we were to proceed under the little Tucker Act,
16
then anything that happened here -- the appeal would go to
17
federal circuit.
18
any such claim for monetary relief.
19
20
21
22
Neither side wants that, so I am withdrawing
THE COURT:
All right.
Very well.
Any other preliminary matters we need to take
up at this time?
MS. DUNNE:
Yes, we have exhibits that have been
23
stipulated to, that we wanted to offer into the record.
Would
24
you like us to do that now or would you prefer that after
25
opening statement?
198
1
Q.
So on deployment, how were you treated by your fellow
2
service members in Kuwait?
3
A.
4
that the military is a very professional institution.
Very professionally.
5
6
THE COURT:
Okay, on that note we are going to break
for the day.
7
THE WITNESS:
8
THE COURT:
9
I really can't stress that enough,
morning.
Yes, sir.
We will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow
I have got a sentencing tomorrow morning, but it
10
shouldn't delay our start time.
11
You have conference rooms that you've occupied, so you are
12
set.
13
make use of the courtroom when we have our sentencing
14
tomorrow.
15
Clear the tables -- counsel tables, so that counsel can
Anything we need to take up at this time before we recess?
16
MR. LOBSENZ:
17
MR. PHIPPS:
18
THE COURT:
19
20
21
22
Just keep your stuff here.
No, Your Honor.
No, Your Honor.
Court will be in recess.
(The Court recessed to Tuesday, September 14, 2010, at the
hour of 9:00 a.m.)
*
*
*
*
*
C E R T I F I C A T E
23
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
24
/S/ Teri Hendrix __________
Teri Hendrix, Court Reporter
25
January 7, 2011
Date
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?