United States v. Triple a MacHine Shop, Inc. Albert E. Engel

857 F.2d 579 35 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 75,558 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRIPLE A MACHINE SHOP, INC.; Albert E. Engel, Defendants-Appellants. No. 87-1958. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 1988. Decided Sept. 14, 1988. Robert K. Huffman, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellants. William B. Lazarus, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before WALLACE, REINHARDT and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. LEAVY, Circuit Judge: 1 The United States, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, brought an ejectment action against the appellant, Triple A, under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1345 , seeking possession of property the government had leased to Triple A, and damages. 2 The district court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the Navy was entitled to immediate possession of the property and permanently enjoining Triple A from remaining on it. Triple A moved to vacate the order on two grounds: (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and (2)…

The United States, on behalf of the Department of the Navy, brought an ejectment action against the appellant, Triple A, under 28 U.S.C. § 1345 , seeking possession of property the government had leased to Triple A, and damages.

The district court granted the government’s motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the Navy was entitled to immediate possession of the property and permanently enjoining Triple A from remaining on it. Triple A moved to vacate the order on two grounds: (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) alternatively, the district court improperly applied the parol evidence rule. *581 The district court denied Triple A’s motion to vacate and affirmed its earlier order. Triple A appeals. We hold that the expired lease does not provide a defense to this action for ejectment and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard consists of approximately 965 acres of land located on San Francisco Bay. The United States Navy operated it until 1973. In 1975, the Navy decided to lease a substantial portion of the property, and thus issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2667 (1983). After…

concurring:

I concur in the majority’s opinion. I write separately, however, in order to clarify the basis for my concurrence in section A, the part of the opinion that discusses the disputes clause.

Notwithstanding the broad language of the standard disputes clause, 1 that clause, unlike the typical arbitration clause, has consistently been interpreted in a very narrow manner. It is not possible to understand the workings of the disputes clause without referring to other provisions of the contract. In addition to the disputes clause, government contracts often contain substantive clauses which set forth specified remedies and procedures governing particular claims that may be made by the contracting parties. For example, a substantive clause may provide for increasing both time and compensation if a construction contractor encounters subsurface conditions materially different from those contained in the specifications, United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 , 397 n. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1545 , 1547 n. 1, 16 L.Ed.2d 642 (1966), or may authorize the collection of liquidated damages if a party fails to purchase the goods it contracted for, United States v. Reisman,…