Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05400/USCOURTS-caed-1_98-cv-05400-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Ejectment

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

HELLMUT LAUE, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-98-5400 REC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART WRITTEN AND

ORAL OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED

WRIT OF EJECTMENT (Doc. 312)

AND DENYING MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER (Doc. 320)

The court granted summary judgment for the United States

against all defendants then in this action, i.e., Hellmut Laue,

Theodore Bollinger, Ralph Calvo, and James Andrew Davis. 

Defendants appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary

judgment rulings. However, the Ninth Circuit remanded to this

court 

with directions to enter a detailed order

specifying the terms and conditions under

which: 1) defendants can continue to mine the

site; 2) defendants are prohibited from

residing on the site except while complying

with BLM regulations; and 3) defendants’

personal property must be removed from the

Case 1:98-cv-05400-REC -SMS Document 333 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2

land. On remand, the district court shall

retain jurisdiction to enter such

supplemental orders as may be necessary to

effect the removal of defendants and their

property from the site, consistent with the

terms of the district court’s detailed order.

The United States lodged a Proposed Writ of Ejectment. 

Although no objections were filed to this Proposed Writ, the

court ordered the United States to submit a revised Writ of

Ejectment. The "[Second Proposed] REVISED WRIT OF EJECTMENT

AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND ORDER FOR DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED

PROPERTY" was lodged by the United States on April 7, 2005. The

court ordered the defendants to file written objections to the

revised writ by May 9, 2005. The court also advised defendants

that no continuances of the date for filing objections will be

granted. The matter was set for hearing on June 20, 2005. Due

to the unavailability of the court on June 20, the hearing was

continued to June 27, 2005. The hearing was again continued at

the court’s instance to August 22, 2005. Pursuant to Helmut

Laue’s request for a continuance in order to obtain an attorney,

the United States stipulated to another continuance to October

24, 2005. On October 21, 2005, the United States again

stipulated to a continuance of the hearing at Helmut Laue’s

request due to “severe medical problems”, the hearing being

continued to February 13, 2006. 

On May 9, 2005, defendant Teddy Bollinger filed an objection

to the Revised Writ of Ejectment. Neither Helmut Laue, Ralph

Calvo or James Andrew Davis filed written objections. Neither

Case 1:98-cv-05400-REC -SMS Document 333 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendant Calvo stated that he was making an appearance 1

behalf of Hellmut Laue and Theodore Bollinger as well as himself.

However, as the court advised Mr. Calvo at oral argument, Mr.

Calvo, who is not an attorney, cannot appear on behalf of his codefendants. See Rule 83-183(a), Local Rules of Practice.

3

Hellmut Laue, Teddy Bollinger, or James Andrew Davis appeared at

the hearing on February 13, 2006. 

In the objection to the Revised Writ of Ejectment, Teddy

Bollinger proposes that defendants be granted 120 days from the

date of the order to both cease residing on the subject

properties and to remove their belongings. 

The United States agrees that the Revised Writ of Ejectment

be so amended and has lodged a final proposed Revised Writ of

Ejectment as amended for signature and filing.

Defendant Ralph Calvo appeared at the hearing on February

13, 2006. As noted, Mr. Calvo did not file any objections to 1

the proposed Writ of Ejectment. Nonetheless, Mr. Calvo requested

that the court set aside the judgments in this action or to

continue issuance of the Writ of Ejectment because of the

possibility that Congress might enact legislation allowing the

filing of mining claims on land that cannot support a profitable

mine and that would lift the 11-year moratorium on the passing of

mining claims into full ownership. Mr. Calvo submitted a copy of

a newspaper article from the November 20, 2005 San Francisco

Chronicle stating that the House of Representatives had passed a

bill including these provisions in mid-November 2005. 

The court denies Mr. Calvo’s request to vacate the judgments

Case 1:98-cv-05400-REC -SMS Document 333 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

or continue issuance of the proposed Writ of Ejectment. From the

court’s research, on December 13, 2005, Congressman Jim Gibbons,

Chairman of the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee,

and a supporter of the bill, issued a Press Release officially

withdrawing the provisions upon which Mr. Calvo relies in making

his request. 

An "Objection to Judgement and Motion for Protective Order:

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LAWFUL IMPROVEMENTS TO

MILLSITE AND DUE PROCESS" was filed by Billy Quealy on May 13,

2005. 

The court disregards Mr. Quealy’s objections and denies his

Motion for Protective Order. Mr. Quealy is no longer a party to

this action. On May 18, 1999, a "Settlement Agreement and

Release Between Plaintiff and Defendant Quealy" was filed in this

action. A "Stipulation and Order Dismissing Defendant Quealy;

Provision for Continuing Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement

Agreement" was filed on May 21, 1999. 

Because of this Order, the proposed Writ of Ejectment has no

application to Billy Quealy. Quealy is bound by the terms of the

Settlement Agreement. Therefore, Mr. Quealy has no standing to

object to the terms of the proposed Writ of Ejectment. With

regard to his Motion for Protective Order, his contentions 

concerning the retention of the water delivery and storage system

and being allowed to keep one recreational vehicle at the site

are matters subject to the Settlement Agreement and applicable

regulations. If Mr. Quealy wants to retain these items on the

Case 1:98-cv-05400-REC -SMS Document 333 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

site, he must first establish that the Settlement Agreement

allows him to do so and he must comply with the applicable

regulations and establish to the court that he has done so. 

Because he has not made such a showing, the court denies his

Motion for Protective Order. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The [Final Proposed] Revised Writ of Ejectment against

Defendants and Order for Disposition of Abandoned Property is

approved and will be separately signed by the court and filed

with the Clerk of the Court;

2. The Motion for Protective Order filed by William Quealy

on May 13, 2005 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:98-cv-05400-REC -SMS Document 333 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 5