United States of America v. Hoyte et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying 81 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

CASE NO. C10-2044BHS

v.
DEREK HOYTE and COLUMBIA
CREST PARTNERS, LLC,

10

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants Derek Hoyte (“Hoyte”) and

13

Columbia Crest Partners, LLC’s (“Columbia Crest”) (collectively “Defendants”) motion

14

for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing their counterclaims (Dkt. 81). The

15

Court has reviewed the briefs filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file

16

and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

17
18
19
20

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 20, 2010, the United States (“Government”) filed a complaint
against Defendants. Dkt. 1. The Government contends that (1) Defendants are violating
the conditions of certain easements that have been placed on Defendants’ property; (2)

21

Defendants’ conduct has injured adjoining land owned by the Government; and (3)
22
23
24
25

Defendants have also misappropriated timber from the adjoining land. Id.
On September 14, 2011, the Court granted the Government leave to amend its
complaint. Dkt. 54. On September 20, 2011, the Government filed an amended

26

complaint adding a cause of action for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §

27

1251, et seq. Dkt. 55 (“FAC”).

28
ORDER - 1

1

On November 11, 2011, Defendants answered and asserted counterclaims against

2

the Government. Dkt. 63. On November 22, 2011, the Government filed a motion to

3

dismiss the counterclaim. Dkt. 65. On March 7, 2012, the Court granted the

4

Government’s motion. Dkt. 80. On March 21, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for

5

reconsideration.

6
7
8

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A full recitation of the facts is set forth in the Court’s previous order. However,
the facts relevant to the instant motion are as follows: (1) the Government entered into a

9

Conservation Easement with the previous owner of Defendants’ property; (2) the
10
11
12
13
14

Conservation Easement was recorded more than 12 years before this action was filed; and
(3) Defendants allege that the Government is presently attempting to “interpret” the
easement in its favor to restrict property rights that were granted to Defendants in the
Conservation Easement.
III. DISCUSSION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides
as follows:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny
such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have
been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). In this case, Defendants move for reconsideration arguing that
the Court committed manifest error in ruling that the statute of limitations under the Quiet

23

Title Act began when the Conservation Easement was recorded. Dkt. 81 at 1–2.

24

Defendants argue that the statute of limitations should have begun when the Government

25

made the affirmative act of interpreting the Conservation Easement to restrict Defendants’

26

property rights. Id. While it may seem unfair, the Court disagrees with Defendants

27
28
ORDER - 2

1

because the Court is bound to strictly construe the applicable case law as set forth in the

2

Court’s previous order.

3

The Quiet Title Act provides that the “United States may be named as a party

4

defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property

5

in which the United States claims an interest . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a). An action

6
7
8

under the Quiet Title Act is “barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the
date upon which it accrued.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). The Quiet Title Act’s statute of
limitations is jurisdictional, Grosz v. Andrus, 556 F.2d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 1977), and

9

Courts must strictly construe it in favor of the Government, State of California v. Yuba
10
11
12
13

Goldfields, Inc., 752 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1985).
The “action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his
predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.” 28

14

U.S.C. § 2409a(g). The phrase “should have known” imparts a test of reasonableness.

15

Yuba, 752 F.2d at 396. However, the appropriate “question is whether the United States’

16

actions would have alerted a reasonable landowner that the government claimed an

17

interest in the land.” Shultz v. Dept. of Army, U.S., 886 F.2d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.1989).

18

All that is necessary to trigger the statute of limitations “is a reasonable awareness that

19

the Government claims some interest adverse to the plaintiff’s.” Spirit Lake Tribe v.

20

North Dakota, 262 F.3d 732, 738 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted).

21

In this case, Defendants argue that the “reasonableness” test set forth in Yuba

22

should be applied so that a quiet title action “accrues” when a disagreement arises over

23

the interpretation of property rights that were granted in the Conservative Easement. Dkt.

24
25
26

81 at 2-3. Otherwise, Defendants argue, an owner would “have no way to challenge the
Government’s arbitrary expansion of its rights under the Conservation Easement.” Id. at
3. The Court disagrees with Defendants’ view of the Quiet Title Act and concludes that

27

the act grants jurisdiction for actions regarding disagreements as to the fact that the
28
ORDER - 3

1

Government claims an interest in property. The Quiet Title Act does not grant

2

jurisdiction for this Court to interpret the contractual rights granted to each party in the

3

Conservation Easement. On that basis, the Court must dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim

4

because an individual would have a reasonable awareness that the Government claimed

5

an interest in Defendants’ land when the Conservation Easement was recorded more than

6

12 years ago. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

7

The Court notes that Defendants are currently subject to a preliminary injunction,

8

and it appears that there would be little, if any, prejudice to the Government if the Quiet

9

Title Act issue was appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Without briefing on the issue, it

10
11

also appears that determination of this issue “may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation . . . .” Id.

12

IV. ORDER
13

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for
14
15
16

reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing their counterclaims (Dkt. 81) is DENIED.
DATED this 22nd day of March, 2012.

17
18

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 4