Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00689-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 43:945a Complaint in Condemnation

---

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

AMADOR WATER AGENCY,

2:06-CV-0689-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH PERANO, as trustee of

the ERNEST W. PERANO EXEMPTION

TRUST UAD 09-02-92; MARLENE A.

PERANO, KENNETH J. PERANO and

DEAN A. PERANO, as co-trustees

of THE ERNEST AND MARLENE

PERANO TRUST, UAD 09-02-02;

DOES 1-100, inclusive; and All

Persons Unknown Claiming an

Interest in the Property

Described in the Complaint

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Amador Water Agency (“Plaintiff”) has submitted an

Ex Parte Application asking this Court to summarily remand the

present action to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1446,

subdivision (c)(4).

///

Case 2:06-cv-00689-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Defendants Kenneth Perano, Marlene A. Perano and Dean A. Perano,

as trustees of the Ernest W. Perano Exemption Trust and the Ernest

and Marlene Perano Trust (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose

Plaintiff’s motion.1

By a Notice of Removal filed March 30, 2006, Defendants

removed this action to this Court from the Superior Court of

California, County of Amador. Defendants aver that federal

question jurisdiction exists because the resolution of the

underlying property dispute is defined by a boundary originally

drawn pursuant to a federal land patent. Conversely, Plaintiff

argues that assessment of the physical location of that boundary

does not raise any federal question. This Court agrees with

Plaintiff.

The Ninth Circuit has spoken expressly to this question and

clarified that property disputes involving federal land patents do

not confer federal question jurisdiction. See Virgin v. County of

San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000). The United

States has no continuing interest in property acquired through

federal land patents. Id. (citing Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710,

713-714 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, a controversy regarding land has

never been regarded as presenting a federal question simply

because one of the parties to it has derived his title from a

patent or under an act of Congress. Id. (citing Hilegfore v.

Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176, 178 (7th Cir. 1985)(per curiam).

///

Case 2:06-cv-00689-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Defendants’ argument that the facts of the present action are

distinguishable from the foregoing binding precedent is

unpersuasive. The property dispute here is a matter of local

property law to be vindicated in the local courts. Accordingly,

the Court remands this case to the state court for further

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 4, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00689-MCE -GGH Document 9 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 3