Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00414/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00414-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2409(a) Quiet Title Action

---

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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAZEL GREEN RANCH, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability

company,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, DIRK KEMPTHORNE, IN

HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

MARY A BOMAR, IN HER CAPACITY AS

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,

MICHAEL J. TOLLEFSON, IN HIS

CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT,

YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK,

Defendants.

________________________________

SIERRA CLUB, et al.,

Intervenors.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0414 OWW SMS 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 7/15/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 7/25/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 8/15/08

Settlement Conference Date:

7/22/08 10:00 Ctrm. 7

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 10/27/08 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 12/9/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (CT-8 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 6, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, by Martin L. Pitha, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Plaintiff.

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 12
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

28

2

Bruce Bernard, Esq., and Barbara Goodyear, Esq., appeared on

behalf of the Federal Defendants. 

Gregory C. Loarie, Esq., and George M. Torgun, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of the Intervenors.

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

HGR’s Position:

1. HGR alleges its right of entry and easement rights

under, inter alia, R.S. 2477, the Federal Quiet Title Act, and

other separate and independent grounds in the Coulterville Road

and Crane Flat Road (collectively, the “Roads”) which traverse

its property, Hazel Green. That property is located in Mariposa

County on the western border of Yosemite National Park (the

“Park”).

2. The Roads, which have been mechanically constructed,

have existed and been used historically since the late 1800s to

provide stage coach and motor vehicle access to the Yosemite

Valley Floor and today intersect with the realigned Big Oak Flat

Road in two places shortly after leaving Hazel Green. The

realigned Big Oak Flat Road (also known as Highway 120) is today

the primary northern and western access route into the Park. The

Roads, and particularly the segments as they leave Hazel Green

and intersect with the realigned Big Oak Flat Road, were

constructed pursuant to the authority granted by Congress in R.S.

2477 and before its repeal. See 43 U.S.C. § 932.

Defendants’ Position:

3. Defendants assert that HRG has not alleged facts that

establish its claimed interest in the alleged rights-of-way and

that HGR fails to set forth, with the required particularity, the

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 12
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

28

3

nature of the right, title, and interest claimed by HGR. 

Defendants assert that the locations and the claimed uses for

which interests in the alleged rights-of-way are claimed to have

been perfected are not described with sufficient particularity to

allow the United States to understand with certainty the routes

and uses that HGR is claiming. Defendants allege that the two

claimed routes have not been continuously used since the late

1800s and that the Crane Flat Cut-Off Route was not used for

motorized vehicle travel at any point in time. Defendants allege

that HGR does not have rights under state law to re-establish or

use the claimed routes for motorized travel because the routes

have been abandoned, extinguished, or otherwise lost. Defendants

allege that HGR does not have standing to assert the claimed

interests in alleged rights-of-way under R.S. 2477 or the Quiet

Title Act, that the claims set forth in the Complaint fail to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that the

claims are time-barred under the Quiet Title Act.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

HGR’s Position:

1. HGR does not anticipate amending its Complaint. 

Defendants suggest other parties should be joined (see below),

but those other parties have not objected to any claimed interest

in the roads at issue by HGR and, in fact, the U.S.D.A.’s own

maps reflect the Coulterville Road as a county road, not a

federally-owned road. Nonetheless, should events warrant, HGR

reserves its right to amend its Complaint.

Defendants’ Position:

2. Defendants allege that, depending on the locations of

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 12
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

28

4

the alleged rights-of-way in which HGR claims an interest, HGR

may have failed to join indispensable parties, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (“U.S.D.A.”) and the U.S. Forest

Service (“Forest Service”). While Defendants do not presently

anticipate amending their Answer, if HGR moves to amend its

Complaint to join the U.S.D.A. and the Forest Service, Defendants

will need to amend their Answer.

The Court:

3. The Federal Defendants contend that the United States

Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service are the

owners of lands over which the claimed right-of-ways run. 

Accordingly, they will assert that Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 19 requires their joinder. The government takes the

further position that because lands over which rights-of-way are

claimed are owned by the United States, as sovereign, that the

United States, in its sovereign capacity, is a required

Defendant. 

4. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days, through and

including October 9, 2007, to file any amended complaint or to

obtain a stipulation to the filing of the amended complaint to

join any additional parties. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted and Contested Facts. 

HGR’s Position:

1. HGR submits that the historical facts concerning the

Roads, including but not limited to their creation, existence,

and use, are uncontested, and HGR anticipates that it and

Defendants will ultimately be able to agree to all or a

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 12
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

28

5

substantial portion of said facts. Facts which the Defendants

apparently contest include the condition of the Hazel Green

property, the content of certain discussions between HGR and

government representatives, the exclusivity of certain historical

rights in the Roads, and ownership of the Coulterville Road

(which historically and today includes the Crane Flat segment).

Defendants’ Position:

2. Defendants submit that there are a number of contested

facts concerning the location, period of use, types of use, and

existence of the claimed routes. Defendants, nevertheless,

concur that the parties will likely be able to reach agreement on

some of the relevant facts. Defendants assert that, although

issues concerning prior discussions between HGR and Defendants

are irrelevant, there is disagreement concerning the nature of

prior discussions between representatives of HGR and the

Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials. 

Defendants further assert that, if it is determined that the

routes still exist, there is disagreement concerning ownership of

the routes. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. HGR’s rights-of-way in the Roads.

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 5 of 12
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

28

6

2. HGR’s right to mandamus.

3. Defendants allege that disputed legal issues

include whether HGR has standing to claim its asserted interest

in the alleged rights-of-way.

4. Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the

interests claimed by HGR.

5. The validity of HGR’s claims under R.S. 2477 and

under state law.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

A. Jurisdictional Motions.

1. The parties shall have through and including October

19, 2007, to file motions directed to subject matter or personal

jurisdiction and related dispositive issues which can be decided

without evidence. Any responses shall be filed on or before

November 9, 2007. Any replies shall be filed on or before

November 19, 2007. The motions will be heard on December 10,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. Time for extended oral argument is reserved.

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 12
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

28

7

2. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before December 17, 2007. 

3. Additional motions shall be filed on or before January

28, 2008. Any responses shall be filed on February 25, 2008. 

All replies shall be filed on or before March 10, 2008. The

hearing on those motions shall be March 24, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.

with time for extended oral argument reserved. 

4. The parties are directed to disclose all initial expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before April 15, 2008. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before May 15, 2008. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their

expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the

written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R.

Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

5. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including expert discovery, on or before July 15, 2008. 

6. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 7 of 12
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

28

8

discovery motions, will be filed on or before July 25, 2008, and

heard on August 29, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than August 15, 2008, and will be heard on

September 22, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. October 27, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. December 9, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 8 of 12
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

28

9

States District Judge. 

2. This is a non-jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 8 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for July 22, 2008,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 9 of 12
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

28

10

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

HGR’s Position:

1. The trial length may increase if other parties

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 10 of 12
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

28

11

intervene. Otherwise, Plaintiff perceives no bifurcation issues. 

Plaintiff does not agree with Defendants’ suggested schedule or

approach regarding jurisdictional issues, as set forth further

above, because such issues can and should be resolved earlier in

this litigation.

Defendants’ Position:

2. Defendants do not now request, and do not anticipate

requesting, bifurcation or phasing of trial. Defendants wish to

focus initial discovery and pre-trial motions on jurisdictional

issues so that there may be a round of motions, briefing and

hearing on jurisdictional issues, that could, if necessary, be

followed by a round of other dispositive motions directed towards

the merits of the claims.

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are two other Quiet Title Act actions concerning

alleged R.S. 2477 rights-of-way pending in the Eastern District: 

(1) County of Inyo v. Department of the Interior, et al., civil

action no. 1:06-cv-1502 AWI; and (2) Friends of the Panamint

Valley, et al., v. Dirk Kempthorne, et al., civil action no.

1:07-cv-487 LJO. There is another Quiet Title Act action

concerning alleged R.S. 2477 rights-of-way pending in the Central

District of California: San Bernardino County v. United States,

civil action no. 06-cv-1179 (Judge Phillips). There are also a

number of Quiet Title Act actions concerning alleged R.S. 2477

rights-of-way pending in the District Courts within the Tenth

Circuit and in the D.C. Circuit. None of these cases involve the

alleged rights-of-way at issue here. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 11 of 12
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

28

12

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00414-OWW -SMS Document 33 Filed 09/11/07 Page 12 of 12