Grindstone Indian Rancheria et al v. Olliff

Filing 59

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/20/2021 DENYING 52 Motion for Summary Adjudication on their declaratory judgment claim. (Reader, L)

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

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

15
16
17
18

v.
TERRENCE OLLIFF, individually
and as a beneficiary/trustee of
the Olliff Family Trust, DIANNE
L. OLLIFF, individually and as a
beneficiary/trustee of the
Olliff Family Trust, and DOES 110,
Defendants.

19
20

2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION; ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE UNDER FRCP 11

Plaintiffs,

13
14

No.

This lawsuit concerns a property dispute over a strip of

21

land between Grindstone Indian Rancheria and 100 of its

22

residents’ (“Plaintiffs”) and the Olliffs’ (“Defendants”)

23

properties.

24

the Court is Plaintiffs’ second motion for summary adjudication

25

on its declaratory relief claim.

26

Adjudication (“Mot.”), ECF No. 52.

27

motion.

28

ECF No. 55.

See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 10-2.

See Opp’n, ECF No. 54.

Before

See Pls.’ Second Mot. for Summ.
Defendants oppose this

Plaintiffs replied.

See Reply,

Because the motion is procedurally improper and
1

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 8
1

because genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court DENIES

2

Plaintiffs’ motion.1

3
4

I.

5

BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the factual background of this

6

case—it is set forth extensively in the parties’ briefings and

7

the Court’s prior order.

8

Adjudication (“Prior Order”), ECF No. 37.

9

See Order denying Mot. for Summ.

In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary

10

adjudication on their declaratory relief claim.

11

for Summ. Adjudication (“Prior Mot.”), ECF No. 29.

12

denied Plaintiffs’ motion in August 2019.

13

Almost two years later, Plaintiffs move again for summary

14

adjudication on the same claim.

15

motion is “not simply a do-over of [the] motion previously denied

16

by this Court” and “relies on new declarations and the recent

17

deposition testimony of Defendants’ expert.”

See Mot.

See Pls.’ Mot.
The Court

See Prior Order.

Plaintiff asserts its

Reply at 1, 3.

18
19

II.

OPINION

20

A.

Request for Judicial Notice

21

Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows a court to

22

take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact that is “not

23

subject to reasonable dispute,” because it (1) “is generally

24

known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction”; or

25

(2) “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

26
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 May 4, 2021.
2
1

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 8
1

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”

2

201(a)–(b).

3

public record.

4

Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011).

5

record include “documents on file in federal or state courts.”

6

Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012).

7

However, courts may not take judicial notice of “disputed facts

8

stated in public records.”

9

F.3d 668, 690 (9th Cir. 2001).

10

Fed. R. Evid.

A court may take judicial notice of matters of
United States ex rel. Lee v. Corinthian
Matters of public

See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of three

11

documents in the Court’s records for this case.

See Defs.’ Req.

12

for Jud. Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 54-4.

13

matters of public record and therefore proper subjects of

14

judicial notice.

15

Request for Judicial Notice.

16

notice only of the existence of these documents and declines to

17

take judicial notice of their substance, including any disputed

18

or irrelevant facts within them.

These documents are

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
However, the Court takes judicial

Lee, 250 F.3d at 690.

19

B.

Evidentiary Objections

20

Defendants also raise evidentiary objections to Plaintiffs’

21

statement of undisputed facts.

See Defs.’ Objections, ECF No.

22

54-3.

23

declines to rule on each one individually as courts self-police

24

evidentiary issues on motions for summary judgment and a formal

25

ruling is unnecessary to the determination of this motion.

26

Sandoval v. Cty. Of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. Jan.

27

13, 2021) (citing to Burch v. Regents of the University of

28

California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1119) (E.D. Cal. 2006) (noting

The Court has reviewed these evidentiary objections but

3

See

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 4 of 8
1

objections “are generally unnecessary on summary judgment because

2

they are “duplicative of the summary judgment standard itself”

3

and that “parties briefing summary judgment motions would be

4

better served to ‘simply argue’ the import of the facts reflected

5

in the evidence rather than expending time and resources

6

compiling laundry lists of objections”)).

7

C.

8

A Court must grant a party’s motion for summary judgment

9

Legal Standard

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

10

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

11

of law.”

12

initial burden of “informing the district court of the basis for

13

its motion, and identifying [the documents] which it believes

14

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of a material fact.”

15

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

16

material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

17

governing law.”

18

248 (1986).

19

burden rests upon the nonmoving party to “set forth specific

20

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

21

issue of fact is genuine if “the evidence is such that a

22

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

23

Id.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(a).

The movant bears the

A fact is

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,

Once the movant makes this initial showing, the

Id.

24

D.

25

An

Analysis

Defendants argue Plaintiffs have, without justification,

26

“re-filed the exact same Motion for Summary Adjudication of the

27

Declaratory Relief Claim which was previously adjudicated and

28

ruled on.”

Id. at 1-2, 7.

The Court agrees.
4

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 5 of 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

“The order of denial of summary judgment is an interlocutory
decree” and “the court in its discretion may reconsider such
order.”

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp.656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986) (internal citations omitted).
Thus, a district court has discretion to consider a second motion
for summary judgment.

Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of

Beverly Hills, 304 F Supp.2d 1208, 1214-1215 (C.D. Cal 2004)
(internal citations omitted).

A renewed or successive summary

judgment motion is appropriate if one of the following grounds
exists: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record; and
(3) [the] need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.”

Id. at 1215(internal citations omitted); see also

Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc. v. Applied Materials,
Inc., 922 F.Supp. 1439, 1442 (N.D. Cal 1996) (“a moving party may
renew a motion for summary judgment notwithstanding denial of an
earlier motion by showing a different set of facts or some other
reason justifying renewal of the motion”).
Plaintiffs do not contend there has been an intervening
change in controlling law or that there is need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

See Mot; Reply.

Rather, Plaintiff asserts the grounds for this motion are an
expanded factual record, particularly “new declarations and the
recent deposition testimony of Defendants’ expert.”

Reply at 3.

However, while there are new declarations and new
deposition testimony, Plaintiffs raise the same argument that
this Court previously considered and rejected: that they are

28
5

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 6 of 8
1

entitled to summary judgment based upon Defendants’ failure to

2

exhaust their administrative remedies.

3

at 5-6.

4

a 60-day period to file a protest of the 2011 Bureau of Land

5

Management (“BLM”) Cadastral Survey “which expired on October

6

16, 2012” yet failed to do so.

7

raised and the Court specifically rejected this argument in its

8

prior order: “Plaintiffs … do[] not meaningfully respond to

9

Defendants’ argument that disputed issues of fact preclude

Mot. at 1, 19-20; Reply

Specifically, they stress the fact that Defendants had

Mot. at 7.

However, Plaintiff

10

summary adjudication.

11

that Defendants failed to timely exhaust their administrative

12

remedies and are now using a ‘backdoor approach’ to ‘completely

13

contradict and challenge the BLM Survey.’

14

accusations, Plaintiffs are the only ones who seek to muddle the

15

distinction between interpreting the BLM’s survey and

16

challenging the validity of that survey.

17

U.S.C. § 704,

18

to interpret the BLM Survey.

19

The APA allows courts to review the accuracy of an

20

administrative decision under certain circumstances.

21

702.

22

agency’s decision applies to a set of facts.

23

above, Defendants do not challenge the accuracy of the BLM

24

Survey; they challenge Plaintiffs’ reading of it.”

25

at 9-10 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added).

26

reasoning holds true here.

27
28

Instead, they double-down on their theory

Despite these

Citing to the APA, 5.

Plaintiffs argue the Court is without authority
This argument misses the mark.

5 U.S.C. §

It does not curtail the Court’s ability to discern how an
As explained

Prior Order
The same

The disputed issues of fact that led the Court to deny
Plaintiffs’ prior motion again preclude summary judgment.
6

See

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 7 of 8
1

Defs.’ Response to Statement of Undisputed Facts (“RSUF”) ¶¶ 7,

2

8, 16, 18, ECF No. 54-1.

3

validity of the 2011 BLM Survey or the fact that they did not

4

object to the Survey.

5

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Survey,

6

particularly where it sets the “western boundary of Plaintiffs’

7

20-acre Parcel 2.”

8

interpret the Survey as reinstating the Knox corner marker to

9

Parcel 2 and thus including the disputed strip of land in Parcel
Mot. at 3-6.

Defendants are not challenging the

Prior Order at 9; Opp’n at 2.

Opp’n at 8; RSUF ¶¶ 7, 8, 18.

Defendants disagree.

Rather,

Plaintiffs

10

2.

See Opp’n at 2-3, 7-8.

11

These are material issues of fact.

12

264 U.S. 206, 2011 (1924) (instructing that questions of “where

13

the line run by a survey lies on the ground, and whether any

14

particular tract is on one side or the other of that line, are

15

questions of fact”).

See U.S. v. State Inv. Co.,

16

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated proper

17

grounds for bringing this second motion let alone that they are

18

entitled to summary adjudication.

19

304 F Supp.2d at 1214-1215; see also Advanced Semiconductor

20

Materials Am., Inc., 922 F. Supp. at 1442.

See Nightlife Partners, Ltd.,

21

E.

Sanctions

22

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3), a court may

23

order a party to show cause why Rule 11(b) has not been violated

24

and why sanctions should not be imposed.

25

“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion or other

26

paper – whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later

27

advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that

28

to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief,
7

Rule 11(b)(1) provides:

Case 2:17-cv-02292-JAM-JDP Document 59 Filed 07/21/21 Page 8 of 8
1

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1)

2

it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to . .

3

cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of

4

litigation.”

5

Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why filing this second

6

motion for summary adjudication – based on the same arguments

7

that the Court already considered and rejected – did not violate

8

Rule 11(b)(1).

9

(10) days of this order.

Plaintiffs shall file their response within ten

10
11
12

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

13

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on their declaratory

14

judgment claim.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2021

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8