Grindstone Indian Rancheria et al v. Olliff

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/16/2018 GRANTING 16 Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend; ORDERING the Oliffs to file an amended counterclaim within 20 days; ORDERING Grindstone to file a responsive pleading 20 days thereafter. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

GRINDSTONE INDIAN RANCHERIA, and
ONE HUNDRED PLUS MEN, WOMEN AND
CHILDREN LIVING ON GRINDSTONE
INDIAN RESERVATION,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
TERRENCE OLLIFF, INDIVIDUALLY
)
AND AS A BENEFICIARY/TRUSTEE OF )
THE OLLIFF FAMILY TRUST, DIANE
)
L. OLLIFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A )
BENEFICIARY/TRUSTEE OF THE
)
OLLIFF FAMILY TRUST, AND DOES 1– )
10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.
)
)

No.

2:17-cv-2292-JAM-EFB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

This case concerns adjacent properties, a boundary dispute,

23

and quarreling neighbors.

Grindstone Indian Rancheria and its

24

tribal membership sued Terrence and Diane L. Olliff, individually

25

and as trustees of the Olliff Family Trust, over their deteriorated

26

relationship and property line disagreement.

27

Also dissatisfied with the state of things, the Olliffs filed a

28

counterclaim against Grindstone Indian Rancheria.
1

ECF Nos. 1, 10-2.

ECF No. 15.

1

Grindstone moves to dismiss the counterclaim.

ECF No. 16.

2

reasons set forth below, Grindstone’s motion to dismiss is

3

For the

granted.1

4
5

I.

6
7

The following facts are taken as true for the purposes of this
motion:

8
9

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Counter-Defendant Grindstone Indian Rancheria (“Grindstone”)
is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe.

81 Fed. Reg. 5019-02, 2016

10

WL 337698; First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 4; Answer ¶ 1;

11

Counterclaim (“CC”) ¶ 2.

12

Dianne L. Olliff (the “Olliffs”), as Trustees of the Olliff Family

13

Trust, own approximately 15 acres of agricultural land and a family

14

residence (“Olliff Parcel”), located at 3580 County Road 305 in

15

Orland, California.

16

1977.

17

(“Indian Reservation Parcel”) located southeast of the Olliff

18

Parcel.

19

property to the east of the Olliff Parcel and just north of the

20

Indian Reservation Parcel (the “Racheria Parcel”) in 1993, on which

21

Grindstone developed housing for its members.

22

(diagram).

23

knowledge of a recorded public survey by George Pride (“Pride

24

Survey”) that clearly shows the corner markers of the Olliff

25

Parcel.

26

the Indian Reservation Parcel and Rancheria Parcel and noted a

CC ¶ 4.

CC ¶ 5.

Counter Claimants Terrence Olliff and

CC ¶ 3.

They acquired this parcel of land in

The Bureau of Indian Affairs owns an 80-acre parcel

Grindstone acquired title to a 20.03-acre

CC ¶¶ 6, 13

Grindstone obtained title to the Rancheria Parcel with

CC ¶ 7.

In 2011, the Bureau of Land Management surveyed

27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for June 19, 2018.
1

2

1

small overlap between the northwest corner of the Indian

2

Reservation Parcel and the southeast corner of the Olliff Parcel.

3

CC ¶ 8.

4

determination that this corner is part of the Indian Reservation

5

Parcel.

6

this small corner, the eastern property line of the Olliff Parcel

7

is consistent with the Pride Survey.

8

side of the Rancheria Parcel ends at the Olliff Parcel’s eastern

9

property line as determined by the Pride Survey.

The Olliffs did not object to the survey results or the

CC ¶ 9.

However, the BLM Survey shows that, apart from

CC ¶ 8.

Thus, the western

CC ¶ 8.

The

10

western boundary of the Rancheria Parcel does not extend into the

11

Olliff Parcel as does the western boundary of the Indian

12

Reservation Parcel; if it did, the Olliffs would lose approximately

13

43,500 square feet of their property to Grindstone.

14

Grindstone maintains that the Rancheria Parcel does extend so far

15

and that this land belongs to them.

16

the BLM survey does not show this disputed area belongs to the

17

Rancheria Parcel.

18

CC ¶ 10.

CC ¶¶ 8, 10.

The Olliffs state

CC ¶ 11.

In 2013, Grindstone constructed a dirt embankment with a

19

sloped edge on the west side of the Racheria Parcel, sloping down

20

into the Olliff Parcel and toward the Olliff residence.

21

The embankment causes storm water to run onto the Olliff Parcel, an

22

effect the Olliffs contend was intentional.

23

last three years, Grindstone “has directed, acquiesced to, and/or

24

failed to supervise and control some of its members and agents such

25

that they have come onto the Olliff Parcel with vehicles and

26

equipment, removed fences from the Olliff Parcel, and placed or

27

created conditions to deposit dirt and boulders on the Olliff

28

Parcel, without the permission or consent of [the Olliffs].”
3

CC ¶ 15.

CC ¶¶ 15, 16.

In the

CC

1

¶ 17.

2

behavior toward the Olliffs, which deters and disrupts their use

3

and quiet enjoyment of their property.

4

Also, Grindstone members and agents have engaged in hostile

CC ¶ 18.

Grindstone and its membership filed their Complaint against

5

the Olliffs on October 31, 2017, ECF No. 1, and their First

6

Amendment Complaint on March 8, 2018, ECF No. 10-2, 11.

7

contends that Terrence Olliff has embarked “on a pattern of

8

domestic terrorism towards [Grindstone] and its membership” related

9

to the disputed land boundaries described above.

Grindstone

FAC ¶¶ 7–9.

10

Grindstone seeks damages for willful trespass, negligent trespass,

11

conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and

12

negligent infliction of emotional distress.

13

seeks an injunction compelling the Olliffs to remove the

14

encroachments, cease trespassing on and obstructing any property

15

rights, and cease other intimidating behavior.

16

Finally, it seeks a declaratory judgment that the property markers

17

as identified by the BLM survey are the correct markers for

18

identifying the boundaries of the Rancheria Parcel.

FAC at 4–11.

It also

FAC at 10–11.

FAC ¶¶ 38–40.

19

The Olliffs filed an Answer and Counterclaim on March 16,

20

2018, which asserted claims against Grindstone for trespass, quiet

21

title—adverse possession, quiet title—establishment of prescriptive

22

easements, and declaratory relief.

23

they filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim, dropping three of

24

the claims and asserting only the claim for trespass.

25

Grindstone now moves to dismiss this counterclaim.

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

ECF No. 12.

By stipulation,

ECF No. 15.

1
2

II.

OPINION

Grindstone Indian Rancheria, “as an Indian tribe, possesses

3

‘the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by

4

sovereign powers.’”

5

Indians, 940 F.2d 1269, 1271 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Santa Clara

6

Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978)).

7

from suits for money damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive

8

relief.

9

868 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir. 2017).

10

Imperial Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Mission

Tribes are shielded

Quinault Indian Nation v. Pearson for Estate of Comenout,

A tribe’s immunity may only be limited by express waiver or an

11

act of Congress.

12

Indian Nation, 868 F.3d at 1097.

13

allegation that [the tribe] acted beyond its powers.”

14

Granite, 940 F.2d at 1271.

15

sovereign immunity from actions that could not otherwise be brought

16

against it merely because those actions were pleaded in a

17

counterclaim to an action filed by the tribe.”

18

v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505,

19

509 (1991).

20

See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 56; Quinault
It “is not defeated by an
Imperial

Further, “a tribe does not waive its

Oklahoma Tax Comm’n

This rule applies to compulsory counterclaims.

Id.

Grindstone argues that this Court is without jurisdiction to

21

entertain the Olliffs’ counterclaim due to Grindstone’s tribal

22

sovereign immunity.

23

Grindstone’s argument.

24

to any authority which supports the proposition that where an

25

Indian Tribe is alleged to have interfered with or otherwise

26

violated the property rights of one who owns property outside of

27

tribal lands, the landowner is barred from suing the Indian Tribe

28

on the basis of sovereign immunity.”

MTD at 8–9. The Olliffs fail to rebut
They argue that Grindstone “has not cited

5

Opp’n at 9.

But the Olliffs

1

fail to cite any authority holding that the contrary proposition is

2

valid, namely, that a tribe is not immune from suit where the tribe

3

allegedly violates an outsider’s property rights.

4

clear precedent holding that tribal sovereign immunity bars suits

5

for damages—the relief sought here—the burden falls on the Olliffs

6

to demonstrate that their claim is an exception to the rule.

7

have not done so.

8
9

In light of

They

The Olliffs seek to derive their preferred rule from Imperial
Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Mission Indians, but that decision

10

supports dismissal of the Olliffs’ counterclaim.

11

(9th Cir. 1991).

12

certain officers, and the tribe’s members for their decision to

13

deny the company access to a road that crossed a portion of the

14

tribe’s reservation.

15

the district court’s determination that the tribe was immune from

16

suit.

17

Olliffs’ claim against Grindstone here.

18

considered whether the company could maintain its suit against the

19

tribal officials. Id.

20

within the scope of their authority when they voted against

21

Imperial Granite Co.’s use of the road on tribal property, they

22

were also immune from suit.

23

940 F.2d 1269

In that case, Imperial Granite Co. sued a tribe,

Id. at 1271.

Id. at 1270–71.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed

This holding supports dismissal of the
The Circuit then

It held that because the officials acted

Id. at 1271–72.

The Olliffs ask the Court to construe the allegations against

24

Grindstone as allegations against Grindstone’s officials.

Opp’n at

25

8–9.

26

counterclaim as alleged.

27

against Grindstone Indian Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe,

28

and not against any individual officials.

The Court is constrained, however, to evaluate the
The Olliffs only assert the counterclaim

6

Their unalleged theory

1

of the case cannot save their claim from dismissal.

2

Precedent dictates that Grindstone Indian Rancheria enjoys

3

immunity from suit and the Olliffs have not offered any legal basis

4

for this Court to find otherwise.

5

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2

6

The Olliffs’ counterclaim is

District courts should grant leave to amend the allegations of

7

a complaint unless it determines such amendment would be futile.

8

See Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. California Collection Serv.

9

Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Olliffs have

10

requested leave to amend their counterclaim and the Court finds

11

that such amendment would not be futile.

12

grants the Olliffs leave to amend their counterclaim.

The Court therefore

13
14

III.

ORDER

15

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Counter-

16

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend. The Oliffs’

17

amended counterclaim shall be filed within twenty days of the date

18

of this Order. Grindstone’s responsive pleading shall be filed

19

twenty days thereafter.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Because the Court finds dismissal warranted due to sovereign
immunity, the Court does not address Grindstone’s arguments that
the Olliffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and
failed to join the United States as a necessary party. Grindstone
raised this latter point for the first time in their Reply brief.
Reply, ECF No. 19, at 5.
2

7