Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01971/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01971-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jim Petroff and Marie Petroff, as husband

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ed Schafer, in his capacity as Secretary of

the United States Department of

Agriculture; the Department of Agriculture

of the United States; the United States

Forest Service, an agency of the

Department of Agriculture of the United

States; Abigail R. Kimbell, in her capacity

as Chief of the United States Forest

Service; Corbin Newman Jr., in his

capacity as Regional Forester, Southwest

Region, United States Forest Service;

Gene Blankenbaker, in his capacity as

Forest Supervisor, Tonto National Forest,

United States Forest Service; Jerome A.

Mastel, in his capacity as District Ranger,

Pleasant Valley Ranger District, Tonto

National Forest, United States Forest

Service, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-1971-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Plaintiffs Jim and Marie Petroff (collectively, “the Petroffs”) filed this action under

the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(f) and 2409a, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28

U.S.C. § 2201, and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking to establish their right to

Case 2:08-cv-01971-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 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

- 2 -

use an easement across National Forest lands. (Doc. # 1.) In a previous order, the Court

dismissed this action for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 11.)

The Petroffs now move for reconsideration of that order. Their motion will be denied.

In short, the Petroffs contend that the Government’s motion to dismiss did not go to

the merits of their complaint, and that the Court erred in dismissing the complaint on the

merits according to the land patent documents submitted with the motion. The Petroffs are

mistaken. Both the Government’s statement of facts and its argument invoked the fact that

the land patent documents created no estate or property interest in the 30-foot strip of

National Forest lands. These assertions hinge on the language and intent of the land patent

documents submitted with the Government’s motion, documents to which the Petroffs did

not object and which were properly considered at the dismissal stage as explained in this

Court’s previous order (doc. # 11). 

The Petroffs contend that they “reasonably construed the Defendant’s argument to

be that the Plaintiffs lacked a sufficient property interest in order to pursue an action under

the Quiet Title Act, not that the expressed intent and unambiguous language of the 1919

Patent precluded any judgment on behalf of the Plaintiffs.” As explained in the Court’s

previous order, this is a distinction without a difference. The Government argued that the

Petroffs failed to state a claim, which deprived the Court of jurisdiction. The Petroffs

responded by arguing that the “originating documentation, special instructions, field

notes, plat map, and logs”—documents accompanying the Government’s motion—created

an express easement under the 1919 patent. Taking the Petroffs’ claim as nonfrivolous, the

Court assumed jurisdiction but agreed with the Government that the documents created no

property interest, warranting Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The confluence of substantively

identical but procedurally distinct modes of dismissal does not excuse the Petroffs’ failure

to object to the Government’s documents or to submit or refer to further documents. Indeed,

the Petroffs’ response included more documents and addressed the ultimate legal effect of

the unambiguous documents submitted by the Government.

Case 2:08-cv-01971-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 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 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (doc.

# 13) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01971-NVW Document 14 Filed 05/18/09 Page 3 of 3