Case: In re Navy Chaplaincy

1:07-mc-00269 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Oct. 5, 1999

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Consolidation of Three LawsuitsThis class-action lawsuit is the consolidation of three distinct cases against the United States Navy: Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Danzig, filed November 5, 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket number 1:99-cv-02945-RMU) Adair v. Danzig, filed March 17, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket number 1:00-cv-00566-RMU) Gibson v. U.S. Navy, filed April 28, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the …

Consolidation of Three Lawsuits

This class-action lawsuit is the consolidation of three distinct cases against the United States Navy:

  1. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Danzig, filed November 5, 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket number 1:99-cv-02945-RMU)
  2. Adair v. Danzig, filed March 17, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket number 1:00-cv-00566-RMU)
  3. Gibson v. U.S. Navy, filed April 28, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (docket number 3:06-cv-00187-MCR-MD), transferred to the D.C. District on September 29, 2006 (docket number 1:06-cv-01696-RMU)
The cases were consolidated as In re Navy Chaplaincy on June 18, 2007, and assigned to Judge Ricardo M. Urbina.

In order to serve the spiritual needs of its personnel and their families, the Navy maintains a chaplain corps, divided into four broad categories: Roman Catholic, Liturgical Protestant, Non-Liturgical Protestant, and Special Worship. The principal plaintiffs in this case are several current and former chaplains identifying as Non-Liturgical Protestant. Represented by the Rutherford Institute, these plaintiffs alleged that the Navy discriminated against them on the basis of religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000-bb et seq. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the Navy unconstitutionally established and maintained a discriminatory system for the promotion, assignment, and retention of chaplains in a manner that disadvantaged chaplains of non-liturgical Protestant faiths. The plaintiffs’ primary claim was that until 2002, the Navy maintained an unconstitutional policy of placing at least one Roman Catholic chaplain on every selection board, which resulted in Catholic chaplains being promoted at a disproportionately high rate compared to other religious groups (they also challenged a number of other selection board policies and procedures). Finally, they challenged a statute that protects selection board deliberations from disclosure in litigation, arguing that it was unconstitutional as applied to their case because it denied them access to information that they needed to prove their constitutional claims. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the challenged policies were unlawful, and an injunction directing the Navy to cease those challenged policies that were still in place and to develop a monitoring system.

Dismissal of Two Claims

On February 1, 2000, the Navy moved to dismiss the Adair complaint. Nearly two years later, on January 10, 2002, the court dismissed two of the claims, which pertained to the composition of selection boards and the promotion process. Adair v. England, 183 F. Supp. 2d 31. The plaintiffs moved for the court to reconsider the dismissal of these two claims, but their motion was denied on August 5, 2002. 209 F.R.D. 1. In response to this denial, the plaintiffs moved for the court to certify the dismissals as final judgments for the purpose of appeal; the court denied this motion as well, on May 6, 2004. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 221 F.R.D. 255. Years later, the plaintiffs again moved for reconsideration of the January 10, 2002 ruling, arguing that the reconsideration was warranted due to evidence obtained during the discovery process. But on March 21, 2012, the court again denied the motion. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 850 F. Supp. 2d 86.

Discoverability of Chaplain Selection Boards’ Deliberations

On October 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the Navy to release members of its various selection boards from their oaths of confidentiality, thereby allowing them to be deposed about board proceedings. On September 2, 2003, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Johnson, 217 F.R.D. 250. However, on July 27, 2004, the D.C. Circuit Court (Judges Douglas H. Ginsburg, Merrick B. Garland, and John G. Roberts, Jr.) reversed the district court’s decision in part, holding that 10 U.S.C. §618(f) barred the disclosure of selection board deliberations. In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a constitutional challenge to §618(f), arguing that the provision, as applied to them, denied them an opportunity for meaningful judicial review because the evidence barred by §618(f) was essential to their claims. On September 11, 2006, the district court rejected this argument and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for declaratory judgment. Adair v. Winter, 451 F. Supp. 2d 210.

Notably, the D.C. Circuit’s opinion regarding the discoverability of selection board deliberations was limited to promotion boards only. Since the court had not analyzed whether 10 U.S.C. §618(f) barred disclosure for each type of selection board independently, the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration with respect to selective early retirement selection boards and active duty continuation selection boards. The district court subsequently held on March 7, 2006 that the statute did not bar discovery of selective early retirement board proceedings. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 234 F.R.D. 7. The Navy moved for reconsideration, which the district court initially denied on September 11, 2006. Adair v. Winter, 451 F. Supp. 2d 202.

However, the National Defense Authorization Act of October 17, 2006 struck §618(f), and replaced it with language granting explicit immunity for all selection boards. Their “discussions and deliberations” could not be admitted as evidence or used in a lawsuit without the consent of the Secretary of the Navy. Therefore the district court, on October 1, 2007, revisited and granted the Navy’s motion for reconsideration. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 512 F. Supp. 2d 58.

Standing and Discriminatory Intent

Throughout the lawsuit, the plaintiffs frequently sought preliminary injunctions that would prevent the Navy from carrying out particular policies. The plaintiffs filed one such motion on June 5, 2003, seeking an injunction to prevent the Navy from allowing Catholic chaplains to remain on active duty past the statutory separation age in order to qualify for retirement pay. The court denied this motion on February 7, 2005. The plaintiffs appealed, and on July 7, 2006, the D.C. Circuit Court (Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith W. Rogers, and Janice Rogers Brown) affirmed the district court’s denial of the structural injunction, but vacated its denial of a preliminary injunction. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290. The district court had wrongly concluded that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the irreparable injury prong of the preliminary injunction framework. As a result, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case for the district court to rule on whether the plaintiffs met the remaining elements necessary for a preliminary injunction. On October 15, 2007, the district court again denied the plaintiffs’ motion, this time holding that they lacked standing to challenge the policy in question. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 516 F. Supp. 2d 119. The D.C. Circuit (Judges Judith W. Rogers, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Laurence H. Silberman) affirmed this decision on August 1, 2008. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 534 F.3d 756.

On July 22, 2011, the plaintiffs again filed for a preliminary injunction, this time with respect to three chaplain selection board policies:

  1. staffing the seven-member selection boards with two chaplains,
  2. enabling board members to keep their votes secret, and
  3. allowing the Chief of Chaplains or his deputy to serve as the selection board’s president.
The district court again denied the preliminary injunction, on January 30, 2012. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 841 F. Supp. 2d 336. The plaintiffs appealed, and on November 2, 2012, the D.C. Circuit (Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith W. Rogers, and David S. Tatel) vacated the denial and remanded for the district court to clarify its reasoning on the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit was unsure whether the district court viewed the insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ claims to be legal or factual. On February 28, 2013 the district court (now Judge Gladys Kessler) again denied the preliminary injunction. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 928 F. Supp. 2d 26. Although the plaintiffs had offered evidence that non-liturgical Protestant chaplains were less likely to be promoted than other chaplains, the discrepancy was only 10 percentage points; the court’s ruling reflected its conclusion that the statistics failed to show discriminatory intent in the policies or their implementation. The D.C. Circuit (Judges David S. Tatel, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Stephen F. Williams) affirmed this decision on December 27, 2013, emphasizing that the statistical study had failed to include any controls (for experience, etc.), and therefore did not suggest that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 738 F.3d 425.

When Judge Gladys Kessler received the case in 2012, she had extended a stay of discovery imposed by Judge Urbina in 2009. In November 2012, she issued an order reiterating that stay. 287 F.R.D. 100.

Class Certification

The court denied class certification on September 4, 2014. 306 F.R.D. 33. The opinion addressed, as a threshold matter, whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the Navy’s chaplain promotion policies. As the promotion policy had been discontinued in 2001, and as there was no evidence that the Navy planned to reenact the policy, the plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. The court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the policy: they had failed to establish that their alleged injury (increased workload) was redressable by the relief sought, because they had not demonstrated that their past workloads had any lasting adverse effects that could be remedied. Thus, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ promotion policy claims.

Regarding class certification, the plaintiffs had sought to certify a class of up to 2500 “present and former non-liturgical Navy chaplains, active duty and Reserve, who were in the Navy or have served in the Navy” between 1976 and the present. While the numerosity requirement was met, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation requirements. Regarding commonality, the court drew heavily on the analysis in Walmart v. Dukes and held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a common answer to the question of why each individual plaintiff was disfavored. With respect to typicality, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to show that their claims arose “from the same course of events” or were otherwise typical of the absent class members’ claims. Finally, regarding adequacy of representation, the court found that there was a conflict of interest between the class representatives and the class members, as the former’s interest in wide-ranging institutional reform was likely in conflict with the latter’s interest in obtaining individualized monetary relief. The court also noted that the class representatives were willing to draw divisions among members of the proposed class, which strongly indicated that they could not be fair and impartial representatives of the class as a whole. Additionally, the court held that even if the plaintiffs had met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), they failed to establish that the class was maintainable under one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b).

Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment

On September 26, 2014, the court granted the Navy’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment. 69 F.Supp.3d 249. The Navy had relied on the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2401(a) to argue that many of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred, as they were filed more than six years after finalization of the policies and personnel actions on which the claims were based. The plaintiffs had argued that their claims had not accrued until the plaintiffs had discovered the discriminatory nature of the Navy’s practices. In the alternative, they had argued that the court should apply equitable tolling doctrines to permit the claims to proceed. The court held that the plaintiffs’ claim was time-barred and the equitable tolling doctrine did not apply.

The Navy’s Motion to Dismiss

On February 27, 2015, the Navy filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds. The motion addressed challenges to the plaintiffs’ remaining claims in three categories:

  1. as-applied challenges to personnel policies or practices;
  2. as-applied challenges to conditions of hostility and bias; and
  3. challenges to ad hoc actions against certain plaintiffs.
On March 16, 2016, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. With respect to the first category, the court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the injury-in-fact or redressability prongs of standing to challenge alleged personnel policies or practices. Regarding the second category, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to challenge the alleged cultures of bias and hostility. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs had alleged injury-in-fact and redressability sufficient to support standing to challenge the defendants’ alleged ad hoc actions against certain plaintiffs. In re Navy Chaplaincy, 170 F. Supp. 3d 21.

Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

In 2017, both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs also filed several motions to lift the stay on discovery that was then in place.

On August 30, 2018, the district court (now Judge John D. Bates) denied the plaintiffs’ motions for additional discovery and for summary judgment, instead granting the Navy’s summary judgment motion on six of the nine claims still remaining (calling those six claims the “systemic claims”). Specifically, the court held that because the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the Navy’s board-staffing policies lacked a rational basis, they failed to make out their constitutional challenge to the Navy’s alleged policy of placing one Catholic chaplain on every chaplain selection board. Further, the court held that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the selection board policies at issue failed for essentially the same reason that they had previously failed to secure a preliminary injunction against those policies: they had failed to demonstrate that the challenged policies either were facially discriminatory, were adopted with discriminatory intent, or had a stark enough disparate impact on non-liturgical Protestant chaplains that discriminatory intent could be inferred. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. §613a (the ban on the disclosure of selection board proceedings). In re Navy Chaplaincy, 323 F. Supp. 3d 25.

The plaintiffs’ three remaining claims, which the court referred to as the “ad hoc claims,” asserted constructive discharge, retaliation, and interference with prayer, on behalf of certain individual plaintiffs. The parties sought to sever these remaining claims, arguing that they lacked sufficient commonality to be asserted together in a single action. On November 8, 2018, the court granted the motion to sever the ad hoc claims. The court gave any plaintiff in the action the opportunity to refile his or her individual ad hoc claims (constructive discharge, retaliation, interference with the form of prayer) within 90 days of the severance order, or the claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The court then entered final judgment on April 25, 2019, dismissing all “systemic claims” and, by consent of the plaintiffs, dismissing the severed “ad hoc claims” without prejudice.

Several of the district court’s judgments were appealed to the D.C. Circuit in July 2019 (docket numbers 19-5204 and 19-5206). As of July 3, 2020, the parties’ final briefs are due on July 10, 2020.

27 individual plaintiffs (all Adair plaintiffs, all Gibson plaintiffs, and Martha Carson, Denise Merritt, and Daniel Roysden) jointly re-filed their severed ad hoc complaints as a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 1, 2019, under the caption Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy (docket number 19-cv-95). Senior Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. transferred the case back to the D.C. District: in their motion to sever their claims in the D.C. District, the plaintiffs had represented to the court that their individual ad hoc claims involved different incidents, different people, and different places, and therefore would be more appropriately litigated individually. It was therefore inappropriate for the severed claims to be tried jointly before a judge in another district. However, Judge Morgan ruled that two individual plaintiffs, who resided in the Eastern District of Virginia, could maintain their claims in that court. Those two plaintiffs re-filed their claims individually; one ultimately had his claims dismissed on January 21, 2020, and the other’s claims are pending as of July 3, 2020.

Again before Judge John D. Bates in the D.C. District, the remaining 25 plaintiffs attempted to re-litigate the systemic claims that the court had dismissed in November 2018. The court again dismissed all of those claims, and ruled that individual plaintiffs could have one final opportunity to re-file their claims, individually, within 30 days of the April 1, 2020 ruling. The re-filings must be by leave of the court. The court on May 18, 2020 denied the plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. No individuals have sought leave of the court to refile as of July 3, 2020.

Summary Authors

Jordan Rossen (2/16/2014)

Eva Richardson (12/6/2018)

Gregory Marsh (7/3/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4207398/parties/in-re-navy-chaplaincy/


Judge(s)

Bates, John D. (District of Columbia)

Brown, Janice Rogers (District of Columbia)

Jackson, Raymond Alvin (Virginia)

Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)

Kessler, Gladys (District of Columbia)

Morgan, Henry Coke Jr. (Virginia)

Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (District of Columbia)

Tatel, David S. (District of Columbia)

Urbina, Ricardo M. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Bates, John D. (District of Columbia)

Brown, Janice Rogers (District of Columbia)

Jackson, Raymond Alvin (Virginia)

Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)

Kessler, Gladys (District of Columbia)

Morgan, Henry Coke Jr. (Virginia)

Rogers, John M. (District of Columbia)

Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (District of Columbia)

Tatel, David S. (District of Columbia)

Urbina, Ricardo M. (District of Columbia)

Williams, Stephen Fain (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Schulcz, Arthur A. (Virginia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Beard, Benjamin W. (Florida)

Beckenhauer, Eric B. (District of Columbia)

Bensing, Daniel (District of Columbia)

Caballero, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Carmichael, Andrew Evan (District of Columbia)

Gostin, Kieran Gavin (District of Columbia)

Hall, Christopher R. (District of Columbia)

Hyde, Michael Quenten (District of Columbia)

Lawrence, Matthew A. (Maryland)

Patil, Chetan Adinath (District of Columbia)

Yelin, Lewis S. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

06-cv-00187

Docket

Gibson v. U.S. Navy

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

Oct. 4, 2006

Oct. 4, 2006

Docket

06-cv-01696

Docket

Gibson v. U.S. Navy

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

Docket

00-cv-00566

Docket

Adair v. Danzig

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

Docket

99-cv-02945

Docket

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Danzig

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

Docket

1:07-mc-00269

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 16, 2019

Aug. 16, 2019

Docket
9

99-cv-02945

First Amended Complaint

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Danzig

Jan. 10, 2000

Jan. 10, 2000

Complaint
18

00-cv-00566

First Amended Complaint

Adair v. Danzig

Sept. 5, 2000

Sept. 5, 2000

Pleading / Motion / Brief
40

99-cv-02945

00-cv-00566

Opinion [Denying in Part and Granting in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss]

Adair v. England

183 F.Supp.2d 31

Jan. 10, 2002

Jan. 10, 2002

Order/Opinion
47

99-cv-02945

00-cv-00566

Opinion [Denying Without Prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Restore Status Quo]

Adair v. England

193 F.Supp.2d 196

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

Order/Opinion
67

99-cv-02945

00-cv-00566

Opinion [Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Delay Navy's Chaplain Boards]

Adair v. England

217 F.Supp.2d 1

July 31, 2002

July 31, 2002

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4207398/in-re-navy-chaplaincy/

Last updated Aug. 6, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link

CASE RELATED to CA 99-2945, 00-566, and 06-1696. (jeb, )

June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

PACER
1

COPY OF MEMORANDUM ORDER denying Motion to Transfer Case in related actions; granting the defendants' motion to consolidate; denying all pending motions without prejudice in related actions; directing that CA 06-1696, CA 00-556, and CA 99-2945 be incorporated into this new miscellaneous case number, 07-269, and all further pleadings be filed in this case; parties may refile motions this Miscellaneous No 07mc269;administratively closing the related civil actions pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 06/18/07. (Original order filed in the related cases) (Entered: 06/18/2007)

June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

RECAP
2

MOTION for Reconsideration Order Denying Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order in CFGC v. Winter and Adair v. Winter, MOTION for Protective Order Against Discovery of Selective Early Retirement Board Deliberations by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 07/09/2007)

July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

RECAP
3

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1# 2 Exhibit Ex 2# 3 Exhibit Ex 3# 4 Exhibit Ex 4# 5 Exhibit Ex 5# 6 Exhibit Ex 6# 7 Exhibit Ex 7# 8 Exhibit Ex 8# 9 Exhibit Ex 9# 10 Exhibit Ex 10# 11 Exhibit Ex 11# 12 Exhibit Ex 12# 13 Exhibit Ex 13# 14 Exhibit Ex 14# 15 Exhibit Ex 15# 16 Exhibit Ex 16# 17 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 07/10/2007)

July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

RECAP
4

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply for Three Days to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction by SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 07/16/2007)

July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

RECAP
5

ORDER granting 4 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply for Three Days to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Responses due by 7/25/2007. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 07/17/07. (dbk) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 7/25/2007 (mpt, )

July 17, 2007

July 17, 2007

PACER
6

Memorandum in opposition to re 2 MOTION for Reconsideration Order Denying Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order in CFGC v. Winter and Adair v. Winter MOTION for Protective Order Against Discovery of Selective Early Retirement Board Deliberations filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 07/23/2007)

July 23, 2007

July 23, 2007

RECAP
7

Memorandum in opposition to re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Addressing Mandate of Court of Appeals filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit Exhibit 19# 20 Exhibit Exhibit 20# 21 Exhibit Exhibit 21# 22 Exhibit Exhibit 22# 23 Exhibit Exhibit 23# 24 Exhibit Exhibit 24# 25 Exhibit Exhibit 25# 26 Exhibit Exhibit 26# 27 Exhibit Table of Exhibits# 28 Text of Proposed Order)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2007)

July 25, 2007

July 25, 2007

RECAP
8

REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

Aug. 1, 2007

Aug. 1, 2007

RECAP
9

ERRATA re Exhibit 6 by ALL PLAINTIFFS 6 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/01/2007)

Aug. 1, 2007

Aug. 1, 2007

RECAP
10

REPLY to opposition to motion re 2 MOTION for Reconsideration Order Denying Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order in CFGC v. Winter and Adair v. Winter MOTION for Protective Order Against Discovery of Selective Early Retirement Board Deliberations filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 08/02/2007)

Aug. 2, 2007

Aug. 2, 2007

RECAP
11

Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Stay Pending Appeal in Gibson v. United States Navy by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

Sept. 21, 2007

Sept. 21, 2007

RECAP
12

ORDER signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on September 24, 2007, granting 11 Parties Joint Motion to Amend/Correct Stay Pending Appeal and directing that the deadline in Gibson v. United States Navy, No 1:06cv1696, for defendants to respond to the Compalint is postpond until further order of the Court. (jwd) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

Sept. 24, 2007

Sept. 24, 2007

RECAP
13

MEMORANDUM OPINION 2 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 2 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/01/07. (lcrmu1, ) Modified on 10/1/2007 (lcrmu1, ). (Entered: 10/01/2007)

Oct. 1, 2007

Oct. 1, 2007

RECAP
14

ORDER. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/01/07. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 10/01/2007)

Oct. 1, 2007

Oct. 1, 2007

RECAP

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry No 13 corrected to read MEMORANDUM OPINION.(jwd)

Oct. 1, 2007

Oct. 1, 2007

PACER
15

ORDER denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/15/07. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

Oct. 15, 2007

Oct. 15, 2007

RECAP
16

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/15/07. (lcrmu1, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)

Oct. 15, 2007

Oct. 15, 2007

RECAP
17

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by GREGORY R. DE MARCO, FURNISS HARKNESS, MICHAEL LAVELLE, GEORGE W. LINZEY, TIMOTHY D. NALL, THOMAS RUSH, JAMES M. WEIBLING, JOHN WITHERSPOON, MICHAEL A. WRIGHT, WILLIAM C. BLAIR, LARRY FARRELL, RAFAEL J. QUILES, LYLE SWANSON, DAVID S. WILDER, CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES, MARTHA CARSON, MARK R. JOHNSTON, KLON K. KITCHEN, JR, DENISE Y. MERRITT, DANIEL E. ROYSDEN, MARY HELEN SPALDING, DAVID L GIBSON, RICHARD L. ARNOLD, RAY A. BAILEY, GEORGE P. BYRUM, ROBERT DUANE PURSER, ASSOCIATED GOSPEL CHURCHES, ROBERT H. ADAIR, MICHAEL BELT RE: (17) Order denying motion for Preliminary Injunction. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1325359. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Schulcz, Arthur). Modified on 10/25/2007 to include the word INTERLOCUTORY. (Obrien, Peggy). (Entered: 10/25/2007)

Oct. 25, 2007

Oct. 25, 2007

RECAP

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 17 Notice of Appeal,,, (jf, )

Oct. 26, 2007

Oct. 26, 2007

PACER

USCA Case Number 07-5359 for 17 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by MARY HELEN SPALDING, JOHN WITHERSPOON, DANIEL E. ROYSDEN, KLON K. KITCHEN, JR., WILLIAM C. BLAIR, THOMAS RUSH, MICHAEL BELT, RICHARD L. ARNOLD, DAVID L GIBSON, ASSOCIATED GOSPEL CHURCHES, MICHAEL LAVELLE, MARK R. JOHNSTON, ROBERT H. ADAIR, JAMES M. WEIBLING, DENISE Y. MERRITT, DAVID S. WILDER, GEORGE P. BYRUM, CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES, LARRY FARRELL, ROBERT DUANE PURSER, TIMOTHY D. NALL, FURNISS HARKNESS, LYLE SWANSON, GREGORY R. DE MARCO, RAY A. BAILEY, GEORGE W. LINZEY, MICHAEL A. WRIGHT, MARTHA CARSON, RAFAEL J. QUILES. (jf, )

Nov. 1, 2007

Nov. 1, 2007

PACER
18

Joint MOTION for Order Dropping Adair Plaintiff R. Tomlin by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 11/17/2007)

Nov. 17, 2007

Nov. 17, 2007

RECAP

MINUTE ORDER granting 18 Motion for Order to drop plaintiff Tomlin. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 11/19/07. (lcrmu1, )

Nov. 19, 2007

Nov. 19, 2007

PACER
19

Joint MOTION to Lift Stay and Status Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 07/03/2008)

July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

RECAP

MINUTE ORDER granting 19 Motion to Lift Stay. Before the Court is the Joint Motion by the parties to lift the stay in Gibson v. U.S. Navy, 06-cv-1696, which the Court has consolidated into In re Navy Chaplaincy. The Court GRANTS the parties motion and lifts the stay so that the parties may advance this case. It is further ORDERED that within 15 days the parties shall provide the Court a proposed schedule to address further motions and defendants response to the Gibson Complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 7/3/08. (lcrmu1, )

July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

PACER
20

Joint MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 07/16/2008)

July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

RECAP

MINUTE ORDER granting 20 the parties' joint motion for an order setting a briefing schedule. The court orders the following briefing schedule: plaintiffs may move to alter or amend portions of the Court's 1/10/02 Order, see Adair v. England, 183 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C. 2002), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), or in the alternative, for entry of a final judgment on the dismissed claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (the "Rule 54 Motion") on or before 7/18/08; Gibson plaintiffs may file an amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) on or before 8/18/08; Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Winter and Adair v. Winter ("CFGC/Adair") plaintiffs may move to amend their Complaints under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) on or before 8/18/08; defendants may file their opposition to plaintiffs' Rule 54 Motion on or before 8/29/08; defendants may file an opposition to the CFGC/Adair plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint on or before 9/19/08; plaintiffs may file their reply to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' Rule 54 motion on or before 9/22/08; plaintiffs may file their reply to defendants' opposition to CFGC/Adair's motion to amend their Complaint on or before 10/15/08; defendants may file their response to the amended Gibson Complaint on or before 10/17/08; if defendants file a motion in response to the amended Gibson Complaint, plaintiffs may file their opposition on or before 11/19/08; and if defendants file a motion in response to the amended Gibson Complaint, defendants may file their reply to plaintiff's opposition on or before 12/19/08. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 7/17/08. (lcrmu1, )

July 17, 2008

July 17, 2008

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Final Judgment on or before 7/18/08; Gibson plaintiffs amended complaint 8/18/08; defendants file opposition to plaintiffs 54 motion due by 8/29/08; defendants may file opposition to CFGC/Adair motion to amend complaint on or before 9/19/08; plaintiff's fiel their reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's 54 motion on or before 9/22/08; plaintiffs may file their reply to defendant's opposition to CFGC/Adair motion to amend their complaint on or before 10/15/08; defendants may their response to amended Gibson complaint on or before 10/17/08; plaintiffs may file their opposition on or before 11/19/08; defendants file a motion in response to to amend Gibson complaint, defendants may file their reply to plaintiffs opposition on or before 12/19/08;(mpt, )

July 18, 2008

July 18, 2008

PACER
21

MOTION to Amend/Correct Interloctory Order by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5, # 6 Exhibit Ex 6, # 7 Exhibit Ex 7, # 8 Exhibit Ex 8, # 9 Exhibit Ex 9, # 10 Exhibit Ex 10, # 11 Exhibit Ex 11, # 12 Exhibit Ex 12, # 13 Exhibit Ex 13, # 14 Exhibit Ex 13 App G, # 15 Exhibit Ex 13 App K, # 16 Exhibit Ex 13 App M, # 17 Exhibit Ex 13 App N, # 18 Exhibit Ex 14, # 19 Exhibit Ex 15, # 20 Exhibit Ex 16, # 21 Exhibit Ex 17, # 22 Exhibit Ex 18, # 23 Exhibit Ex 19, # 24 Exhibit Ex 20, # 25 Exhibit Ex 21, # 26 Exhibit Ex 22, # 27 Exhibit Ex 23, # 28 Exhibit Ex 24, # 29 Exhibit 25, # 30 Exhibit Ex 26, # 31 Exhibit Ex 27, # 32 Exhibit Ex 28, # 33 Exhibit Ex 29, # 34 Exhibit Ex 30, # 35 Exhibit Ex 31, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit list, # 37 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 07/18/2008)

July 18, 2008

July 18, 2008

RECAP
22

First AMENDED COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY filed by GREGORY R. DE MARCO, FURNISS HARKNESS, MICHAEL LAVELLE, GEORGE W. LINZEY, TIMOTHY D. NALL, THOMAS RUSH, JAMES M. WEIBLING, JOHN WITHERSPOON, MICHAEL A. WRIGHT, WILLIAM C. BLAIR, LARRY FARRELL, RAFAEL J. QUILES, LYLE SWANSON, RONALD TOMLIN, DAVID S. WILDER, CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES, MARTHA CARSON, MARK R. JOHNSTON, KLON K. KITCHEN, JR, DENISE Y. MERRITT, DANIEL E. ROYSDEN, MARY HELEN SPALDING, DAVID L GIBSON, RICHARD L. ARNOLD, RAY A. BAILEY, GEORGE P. BYRUM, ROBERT DUANE PURSER, ASSOCIATED GOSPEL CHURCHES, ROBERT H. ADAIR, ALL PLAINTIFFS, MICHAEL BELT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22)(tr, ) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

RECAP
23

Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Amend/Correct Interloctory Order filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2, # 3 Exhibit Ex 3, # 4 Exhibit Ex 4, # 5 Exhibit Ex 5, # 6 Exhibit Ex 6, # 7 Exhibit Ex 7, # 8 Exhibit Ex 8, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Hyde, Michael) (Entered: 08/29/2008)

Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

RECAP
24

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 09/16/2008)

Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 2008

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 24 the defendants' unopposed motion for extension of briefing deadlines regarding plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint. The briefing schedule with respect to the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints in Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. Winter and Adair v. Winter is amended as follows: the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint shall be filed on or before 10/10/2008; and the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion to amend complaint shall be filed on or before 11/10/2008. The court notes with disapproval the defendants' failure to comply with the court's standing order. Specifically, the standing order directs that motions for extension of time shall be filed at least four business days prior to the deadline the motion is seeking to extend. See Standing Order paragraph 5. The court will not entertain any further motions for extension of time that do not comply with the standing order. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 09/17/2008. (lcrmu1)

Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 2008

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint shall be filed on or before 10/10/2008; and the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion to amend complaint shall be filed on or before 11/10/2008. (jwd)

Sept. 17, 2008

Sept. 17, 2008

PACER
25

REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION to Amend/Correct Interloctory Order filed by GREGORY R. DE MARCO, FURNISS HARKNESS, MICHAEL LAVELLE, GEORGE W. LINZEY, TIMOTHY D. NALL, THOMAS RUSH, JAMES M. WEIBLING, JOHN WITHERSPOON, MICHAEL A. WRIGHT, WILLIAM C. BLAIR, LARRY FARRELL, RAFAEL J. QUILES, LYLE SWANSON, DAVID S. WILDER, CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES, MARTHA CARSON, MARK R. JOHNSTON, KLON K. KITCHEN, JR, DENISE Y. MERRITT, DANIEL E. ROYSDEN, MARY HELEN SPALDING, ROBERT DUANE PURSER, ROBERT H. ADAIR, MICHAEL BELT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Declaration D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 09/22/2008)

Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

PACER
26

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 22 Amended Complaint,,,, or Otherwise Respond by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 10/08/2008)

Oct. 8, 2008

Oct. 8, 2008

PACER

MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of 26 the defendants' unopposed motion for extension of briefing deadlines as to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint in Gibson v. Winter, and good cause having been shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the briefing schedule is amended as follows: the defendants' answer or dispositive motion in response to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint shall be filed on or before 11/14/2008; the plaintiffs' opposition to any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 12/15/2008; and the defendants' reply in support of any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 01/16/2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/09/2008. (lcrmu1)

Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: he defendants' answer or dispositive motion in response to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint shall be filed on or before 11/14/2008; the plaintiffs' opposition to any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 12/15/2008; and the defendants' reply in support of any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 01/16/2009. (jwd)

Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

PACER
27

REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 Joint MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule Opposition to Amend Comaplaint filed by ALL CHAPLAIN/FULL GOSPEL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

Nov. 10, 2008

Nov. 10, 2008

PACER
28

REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 Joint MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule Adair Reply to Opp to Amend Comaplaint filed by ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

Nov. 10, 2008

Nov. 10, 2008

PACER
29

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 11/14/2008)

Nov. 14, 2008

Nov. 14, 2008

PACER
30

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss & Motion for Judgment on Pleadings by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/08/2008)

Dec. 8, 2008

Dec. 8, 2008

PACER
31

MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) affirming the judgment of the District Court as to 17 Notice of Appeal filed by MARY HELEN SPALDING, et al. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion)(jeb, ) (Entered: 12/15/2008)

Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 30 the plaintiffs' consent motion to extend briefing deadlines as to the plaintiffs' opposition and response to defendants' partial motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings in Gibson v. Winter. The briefing schedule with respect to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint and the defendants' response thereto is hereby amended as follows: the plaintiffs' opposition and any dispositive motion in response to the defendants' partial motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings shall be filed on or before 12/30/2008; the defendants' reply in support of their partial motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings and opposition to any plaintiffs' dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 01/30/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 03/02/2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 12/10/2008. (lcrmu1)

Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' partial motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings shall be filed on or before 12/30/2008; the defendants' reply in support of their partial motion to dismiss and judgment on the pleadings and opposition to any plaintiffs' dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 01/30/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 03/02/2009. (jwd, )

Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

PACER
32

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Move for Class Certification by ALL GIBSON PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/22/2008)

Dec. 22, 2008

Dec. 22, 2008

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 32 the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an order extending plaintiffs' time for filing a motion for class certification. It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs' time for filing their motion for class certification is extended until after the court rules on the defendants' pending motion to dismiss and/or judgment on the pleadings in Gibson v. U.S. Navy; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that, if the court denies in whole or in part the defendants' motion, the parties shall file a briefing schedule addressing the plaintiffs' class certification motion within 14 days after the court's order denying the motion. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 12/23/2008. (lcrmu1)

Dec. 23, 2008

Dec. 23, 2008

PACER
33

Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

Dec. 30, 2008

Dec. 30, 2008

PACER
34

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit list, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Appendix G to Ex 13, # 17 Appendix K to Ex 13, # 18 Appendix M to Ex 13, # 19 Appendix N to Ex 13, # 20 Exhibit 14, # 21 Exhibit 15, # 22 Exhibit 16, # 23 Exhibit 17, # 24 Exhibit 18, # 25 Exhibit 19, # 26 Exhibit 20, # 27 Exhibit 21, # 28 Exhibit 22, # 29 Exhibit 23, # 30 Exhibit 24, # 31 Exhibit 25, # 32 Exhibit 26, # 33 Exhibit 27, # 34 Exhibit 28, # 35 Exhibit 29, # 36 Exhibit 30, # 37 Exhibit 31, # 38 Exhibit 32, # 39 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/30/2008)

Dec. 30, 2008

Dec. 30, 2008

PACER
35

ERRATA Exhibit 32 by ALL GIBSON PLAINTIFFS, ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS, ALL CHAPLAIN/FULL GOSPEL PLAINTIFFS 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 32 corrected)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/31/2008)

Dec. 31, 2008

Dec. 31, 2008

PACER
36

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 01/26/2009)

Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' consent motion 36 for extension of briefing deadlines as to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The briefing schedule is hereby amended as follows: the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 04/01/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 05/04/2009; and the defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 06/03/2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 01/28/2009. (lcrmu1)

Jan. 28, 2009

Jan. 28, 2009

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: The defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 04/01/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 05/04/2009; and the defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed on or before 06/03/2009. (jwd )

Jan. 29, 2009

Jan. 29, 2009

PACER
37

MEMORANDUM OPINION in case 1:07-mc-00269-RMU; granting (202) the plaintiffs' motion to amend in case 1:00-cv-00566-RMU; granting (262) the plaintiffs' motion to amend in case 1:99-cv-02945-RMU. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 01/30/2009. (lcrmu1) Modified on 1/30/2009 (jwd, ). Modified on 1/30/2009 (jwd, ). (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

PACER

NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re docket entry 37 has been corrected to read "Memorandum Opinion." (jwd )

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

PACER
38

ORDER in case 1:07-mc-00269-RMU; granting (202) the plaintiffs' motion to amend in case 1:00-cv-00566-RMU; granting (262) the plaintiffs' motion to amend in case 1:99-cv-02945-RMU. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 01/30/2009. (lcrmu1) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

PACER
39

REPLY to opposition to motion re 29 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A Kagle Decl., # 2 Exhibit Ex. B Smith Decl.)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

PACER
40

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. Attorney Thomas Edward Caballero and Michael Q. Hyde terminated. (Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

Feb. 2, 2009

Feb. 2, 2009

PACER
41

NOTICE of Appearance by Eric B. Beckenhauer on behalf of all defendants (Beckenhauer, Eric) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

Feb. 2, 2009

Feb. 2, 2009

PACER
42

MOTION to Amend/Correct Court's 8/17/00 standing decision and order by CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 02/15/2009)

Feb. 15, 2009

Feb. 15, 2009

PACER
43

Memorandum in opposition to re 42 MOTION to Amend/Correct Court's 8/17/00 standing decision and order filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

March 2, 2009

March 2, 2009

PACER
44

REPLY to opposition to motion re 42 MOTION to Amend/Correct Court's 8/17/00 standing decision and order filed by CHAPLAINCY OF FULL GOSPEL CHURCHES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 03/09/2009)

March 9, 2009

March 9, 2009

PACER
45

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 03/26/2009)

March 26, 2009

March 26, 2009

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 45 the defendants' unopposed motion to extend briefing deadlines as to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It is hereby ORDERED that the briefing deadlines are reset as follows: the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 05/29/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 07/20/2009; and the defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 09/04/2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 03/30/2009. (lcrmu1)

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 05/29/2009; the plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 07/20/2009; and the defendants' reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 09/04/2009. (jwd )

March 30, 2009

March 30, 2009

PACER
46

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Table of Exhibits, # 4 Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

May 29, 2009

May 29, 2009

PACER
48

Memorandum in opposition to re 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (See docket Entry 46 to view document)(rdj) (Entered: 06/04/2009)

May 29, 2009

May 29, 2009

PACER
47

ERRATA Exhibits in Support of 46 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 05/30/2009)

May 30, 2009

May 30, 2009

PACER
49

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

June 30, 2009

June 30, 2009

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 49 the plaintiffs' consent motion for a revised briefing schedule. The court hereby orders the following revised briefing schedule: the plaintiffs' reply to the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed on or before 08/03/2009; the plaintiffs' opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs' Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion and any cross-motion(s) shall be filed on or before 08/17/2009; the defendants' reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to the plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) motion and cross-motion(s), if any, shall be filed on or before 10/09/2009; and the plaintiffs' reply to the defendants' opposition(s) shall be filed on or before 10/26/2009. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 07/06/2009. (lcrmu1)

July 6, 2009

July 6, 2009

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Any Cross Motions are due on or before 8/17/2009. Oppositions to Cross Motions are due on or before 10/9/2009. Replies to Cross Motions are due on or before 10/26/2009. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Dispositive Motion is due on or before 8/17/2009. Defendants' Reply to Opposition to Dispositive Motion is due on or before 10/9/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is due on or before 8/3/2009. PLaintiffs' Rule 56(f)Motion is due on or before 8/17/2009. Defendants' Opposition to Rule 56(f) Motion is due on or before 10/9/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply to Opposition to Rule 56(f) Motion is due on or before 10/26/2009. (tg, )

July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

PACER
50

REPLY to opposition to motion re 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Reply to Def's' Response to Facts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit R)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/03/2009)

Aug. 3, 2009

Aug. 3, 2009

PACER
51

MOTION for Order to Strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/10/2009)

Aug. 10, 2009

Aug. 10, 2009

PACER
52

ERRATA by ALL GIBSON PLAINTIFFS, ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS, ALL CHAPLAIN/FULL GOSPEL PLAINTIFFS 51 MOTION for Order to Strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/11/2009)

Aug. 11, 2009

Aug. 11, 2009

PACER
53

Memorandum in opposition to re 51 MOTION for Order to Strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 08/14/2009)

Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

PACER
54

REPLY to opposition to motion re 51 MOTION for Order to Strike Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/15/2009)

Aug. 15, 2009

Aug. 15, 2009

PACER
55

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 44, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit App K to Ex 50, # 53 Exhibit App M to Ex 50, # 54 Exhibit 51, # 55 Exhibit 52, # 56 Exhibit 53, # 57 Exhibit 54, # 58 Exhibit 55, # 59 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/16/2009)

Aug. 16, 2009

Aug. 16, 2009

PACER
56

Memorandum in opposition to re 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Tab A to Ex 5, # 7 Exhibit Tab B to Ex 5, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

PACER
57

MOTION for Order under Rule 56(f) by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Tab 8 to Ex 1, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

PACER
58

ERRATA by ALL GIBSON PLAINTIFFS, ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS, ALL CHAPLAIN/FULL GOSPEL PLAINTIFFS 56 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5, # 2 Exhibit Tab A to Ex 5, # 3 Exhibit Tab B to Ex 5)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

PACER
59

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 57 MOTION for Order under Rule 56(f) and Opposition 56 by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 08/18/2009)

Aug. 18, 2009

Aug. 18, 2009

PACER
60

MOTION for Order To Allow Supplement to Motion to Strike by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 09/03/2009)

Sept. 3, 2009

Sept. 3, 2009

PACER
61

ERRATA by ALL GIBSON PLAINTIFFS, ALL ADAIR PLAINTIFFS, ALL CHAPLAIN/FULL GOSPEL PLAINTIFFS 56 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 09/04/2009)

Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

PACER
62

Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION for Order To Allow Supplement to Motion to Strike filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Beckenhauer, Eric) (Entered: 09/17/2009)

Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

PACER
63

WITHDRAWN.....Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Order To Allow Supplement to Motion to Strike by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) Modified on 9/24/2009 (ztg, ). (Entered: 09/18/2009)

Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

PACER
64

REPLY to opposition to motion re 60 MOTION for Order To Allow Supplement to Motion to Strike filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

PACER
65

WITHDRAWAL of Motion by ALL PLAINTIFFS re 63 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Order To Allow Supplement to Motion to Strike filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 09/24/2009)

Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

PACER
66

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 57 MOTION for Order under Rule 56(f), 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 09/30/2009)

Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

PACER

MINUTE ORDER granting 66 the defendants' consent motion for extension of briefing deadlines. The court notes that professional commitments do not, as a matter of course, constitute good cause for an extension. Graham v. Pa. R.R., 342 F.2d 914, 915 (D.C. Cir. 1964). Nonetheless, because the defendants have shown good cause for a brief extension of the deadlines, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' second motion for partial summary judgment, opposition to motion for order under Rule 56(f), and reply in support of the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 11/06/2009; and is it FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' reply in support of their second motion for partial summary judgment and reply in support of their motion for order under Rule 56(f) shall be filed on or before 11/30/2009; and it is ORDERED that 59 the plaintiffs' consent motion for extension is hereby GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 10/01/2009. (lcrmu1)

Oct. 1, 2009

Oct. 1, 2009

PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Opposition to Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition for Order under Rule 56(f) are due on or before 11/6/2009. Reply in support to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before 11/6/2009. Plaintiffs' Reply in support of second Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in support of Motion for Order under Rule 56(f) are due on or before 11/30/2009. (tg, )

Oct. 5, 2009

Oct. 5, 2009

PACER
67

Memorandum in opposition to re 57 MOTION for Order under Rule 56(f) filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

Nov. 5, 2009

Nov. 5, 2009

PACER
68

REPLY to opposition to motion re 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and OPPOSITION to 55 Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 36, # 3 Exhibit 37, # 4 Exhibit 38, # 5 Exhibit 39, # 6 Exhibit 40, # 7 Exhibit 41, # 8 Exhibit 42, # 9 Exhibit 43, # 10 Exhibit 44)(Beckenhauer, Eric) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Nov. 6, 2009

Nov. 6, 2009

PACER
69

RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts filed by UNITED STATES NAVY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, GERALD L. HOWEING, LOUIS V. IASIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, BYRON HOLDERBY, JR. (Hall, Christopher) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Nov. 6, 2009

Nov. 6, 2009

PACER
70

REPLY to opposition to motion re 55 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts In Reply, # 2 Exhibit 56, # 3 Exhibit 57, # 4 Exhibit 58, # 5 Exhibit 59)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 11/30/2009)

Nov. 30, 2009

Nov. 30, 2009

PACER
71

REPLY to opposition to motion re 57 MOTION for Order under Rule 56(f) filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/01/2009)

Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

PACER
72

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Opposition to Rule 56(f) Motion by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/01/2009)

Dec. 1, 2009

Dec. 1, 2009

PACER

MINUTE ORDER. The plaintiffs' 72 consent motion for extension of time to file their reply in support of their Rule 56(f) motion is hereby GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 12/02/2009. (lcrmu1)

Dec. 2, 2009

Dec. 2, 2009

PACER
73

MOTION to Strike Defendants' Expert Testimony by ALL PLAINTIFFS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

Dec. 21, 2009

Dec. 21, 2009

PACER
74

ERRATA to Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike by ALL PLAINTIFFS 73 MOTION to Strike Defendants' Expert Testimony filed by ALL PLAINTIFFS. (Schulcz, Arthur) (Entered: 12/22/2009)

Dec. 22, 2009

Dec. 22, 2009

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Oct. 5, 1999

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

(1) Current and former non-liturgical Protestant chaplains in the United States Navy, (2) endorsing agencies for non-liturgical Protestant chaplains, and (3) a coalition of non-denominational Christian evangelical churches.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit religious organization

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

U.S. Navy, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Establishment Clause

Free Exercise Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Hiring

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Religion discrimination