United States v. Fowler, C-85-9333 SAW.
Decision Date | 17 April 1987 |
Docket Number | No. C-85-9333 SAW.,C-85-9333 SAW. |
Citation | 659 F. Supp. 624 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Reatha Marlene FOWLER, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Joseph P. Russoniello, U.S. Atty., Judith Whetstine, Chief, Civil Div., Ronald S. Peterson, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Barbara A. Brenner, Donna J. Hitchens, Hitchens & Brenner, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
The parties' cross-motions for summary judgment came on for hearing April 16, 1987. The Court has considered the briefs, arguments of counsel, and the entire record.
The United States argues that Fowler breached her service obligation under the scholarship contracts by failing to begin service on July 1, 1983. Fowler admits that she did not begin service. She argues that her duty to serve never arose because the government did not fulfill its obligation to assign her to a particular site or to provide her with an offer of employment. However, the record contains uncontradicted evidence that Fowler repudiated her obligation to serve prior to the time the placement process began. (Declaration of David W. Callagy in support of plaintiff's motion, exhibits P and S.)
Fowler also argues that she did not breach the contract because the government improperly failed to assign her to the geographical region of her choice. However, the government has complete discretion in making geographical assignments. United States v. Brooks, 643 F.Supp. 256, 259 (E.D.Mich.1986); (Callagy Declaration, exhibit C, p. 11, exhibit I, p. 13, exhibit F.) See also S.Rep. No. 1062, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4832, 4841 ( ).
Fowler argues that the government violated its statutory obligation to approve her request to serve her obligation through the Private Practice Option ("PPO"). 42 U.S.C. § 254n. However, when Fowler made her PPO request, the government was not obligated to consider her request because she already had been in default. United States v. Redovan, 656 F.Supp. 121 (E.D.Pa.1986).
Fowler argues that the government violated her due process rights by failing to provide her with a hearing before placing her in default. However, Fowler's interest in a government benefit at the time of her breach was at most an expectancy interest. Therefore, due process does not require a hearing. United States v. Swanson, 618 F.Supp. 1231, 1244 (D.C.Mich.1985).
Fowler argues that the contractual terms governing the effect of default are ambiguous. This argument lacks merit. (Callagy Declaration, exhibit D, exhibit G.)
Finally, Fowler argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Simone
...and found the provision enforceable." United States v. Hugelmeyer, 774 F.Supp. 559, 562 (D.Ariz.1991). See also, United States v. Fowler, 659 F.Supp. 624 (N.D.Cal.1987) ("section 254o (b)(1) is an enforceable liquidated damages clause"), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1476 (9th Cir.1988). Thus, the courts......
-
Rendleman v. Bowen
...the authority and discretion to make a final determination on the placement of scholarship recipients. See, e.g., United States v. Fowler, 659 F.Supp. 624, 625 (N.D.Cal.1987), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1476 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Redovan, 656 F.Supp. 121, 125 (E.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 826 F.2d ......
-
Hawronsky v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...liquidated damages or as an unenforceable penalty. United States v. Padavano, 664 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D. Me. 1987); United States v. Fowler, 659 F. Supp. 624, 625 (N.D. Cal. 1987), affd. 849 F.2d 1476 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hayes, 633 F. Supp. 1183, 1187 (M.D.N.C. 1986); United Stat......
-
US v. Hugelmeyer, CIV 90-317-PHX-EHC.
...provision is a penalty or unconscionable have rejected those contentions and found the provision enforceable. United States v. Fowler, 659 F.Supp. 624 (N.D.Cal.1987) ("section 254o (b)(1) is an enforceable liquidated damages clause"), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1476 (9th Further, § 254o (c)(2) provide......