Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02116/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02116-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC: Order Approving Disclaimer and for Other Purposes - Page	1	

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 

 

JOHN C. CRUDEN 

Assistant Attorney General 

DAVID W. GEHLERT, Trial Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

999 18th Street, South Terrace, Suite 370 

Denver, CO 80202 

Telephone: (303) 844-1386 

Facsimile: (303) 844-1350 

david.gehlert@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants 

RICHARD H. HART, JR. 

Law Office Of Richard H. Hart PC 

rick@richardhartlaw.com 

P.O. Box 6193 

Tahoe City, CA 96145 

Telephone: 530-581-4800 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUCIANO FARMS, LLC, a Limited Liability 

Company; ROBERT A. LUCIANO, JR., an 

individual and the trustee of the Robert A. 

Luciano Jr. Revocable Trust Dated February 

27, 1995, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE; TOM VILSACK, Secretary 

of Agriculture; UNITED STATES FOREST 

SERVICE; TOM TIDWELL, 

Chief Forester; EARL FORD, Forest 

Supervisor, Plumas National Forest; DEB 

BUMPUS, District Ranger, Beckwourth 

Ranger District; and DOES 1-25, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC 

ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 

DISCLAIMER AND TO VACATE 

ORDER AND CONDITIONAL 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL 

Case 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC Document 76 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 5
Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC: Order Approving Disclaimer and for Other Purposes - Page	2	

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 

Having considered the parties’ joint motion for approval of the United States’ disclaimer 

of interest and to vacate the court’s May 23, 2014 order, the court makes the following orders: 

I. APPROVAL OF DISCLAIMER 

 The court CONFIRMS the United States’ disclaimer of interest, because it was executed 

in good faith. See Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States, 313 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 

Lee v. United States, 809 F.2d 1406, 1409–10 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

II. VACATUR OF MAY 13, 2014 ORDER (ECF NO. 37) 

The court’s May 23, 2014 order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion 

to dismiss (ECF No. 37) is an interlocutory order. Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure provides this court with authority to revise an interlocutory order “when it is 

‘consonant with equity’ to do so.” De La O v. Arnold-Williams, Nos. 04-0192 & 05-0280, 2008 

WL 4192033, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2008) (quoting Simmons v. Brier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 

82, 91 (1922)); see also Cuviello v. Cal Expo, No. 11-2456, 2014 WL 1379873, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 

Apr. 8, 2014) (discussing De La O). Whether it is consonant with equity to vacate an 

interlocutory order turns on several factors: “whether all the parties involved in the ruling(s) 

request and agree to vacatur as a condition of a proposed settlement of the action; . . . whether a 

former party to the action would be adversely affected by a vacatur; and whether the costs of 

continuing the action with uncertain results are outweighed by the benefits of the proposed 

settlement of the action.” Cuviello, 2014 WL 1379873, at *3 (quoting De La O, 2008 WL 

4192033, at *1). 

 Here, each of those factors favors vacatur. Both parties to the litigation request vacatur, 

and there are no former parties to the litigation. As described in the parties’ joint motion, the 

settlement, when consummated, will bring significant benefits to both parties. Because the 

settlement is conditioned upon vacatur, granting this motion will enable the parties to realize 

those benefits. See Cuviello, 2014 WL 1379873, at *3 (citing Major League Baseball Props., 

Inc. v. Pac. Trading Cards, Inc., 150 F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1998), and De La O, 2008 WL 

4192033, at *1). 

Case 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC Document 76 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 5
Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC: Order Approving Disclaimer and for Other Purposes - Page	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 

 Should the settlement not be consummated, the parties would have to expend 

considerable resources to see the case through to completion. Resolution of the case through 

litigation would require both a multi-day trial of plaintiffs’ claim to a right-of-way and summary 

judgment proceedings on plaintiffs’ claims brought under the APA. See ECF No. 62. Further, 

there would be a risk of appeal, “which would generate further litigation expenses, and possible 

remand to this Court.” Gemini Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co., No. 14-00121, 2015 WL 

3891423, at *3 (D. Nev. June 18, 2015). While the court is fully prepared to preside over any 

trial needed, by granting the instant motion, “the Court will fully dispose of the case [and] allow 

the Parties to efficiently resolve their dispute without the use of any further judicial resources.” 

Id. 

 The parties’ filing recognizes that their motion implicates important public interests. 

This court expended resources in crafting the order on the motion to dismiss, and even though “a 

district court’s order is not precedential, ‘there is a systemic interest in preserving district court 

judgments because they play a significant role in the development of decisional law by providing 

guidance to private parties with respect to the availability of remedies and to litigation strategy, 

and they can also be useful to the courts of appeals in rendering decisions.’” Cuviello, 2014 WL 

1379873, at *4 (quoting Philip Servs. Corp. v. City of Seattle, No. 06–2518, 2007 WL 3396436, 

at *3 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 Granting the parties’ joint motion will neither remove the ability of the order to offer 

guidance nor render the court’s efforts in promulgating the order a nullity. The order “will 

remain in electronic research databases, albeit flagged, and so [it will be] available for whatever 

guidance [it] may give to parties and other courts.” Cuviello, 2014 WL 1379873, at *4; see also

Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1068 (E.D. Tex. 2011) 

(noting that orders published electronically are available to other parties and courts for 

“[w]hatever persuasive guidance the order may provide”). 

 Vacatur is further appropriate because this is a joint motion and the prospect of vacating 

the order was not the primary motive for the settlement. Am. Games v. Trade Prods., Inc., 142 

Case 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC Document 76 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 5
Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC: Order Approving Disclaimer and for Other Purposes - Page	4	

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 

F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, this is not a case where one party has suffered a litigation 

defeat and seeks to execute “a refined form of collateral attack” to negate that defeat. Cuviello, 

2014 WL 1379873, at *4 (quoting NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of State of 

Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall 

P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 27 (1994)). In contrast to NASD and Bonner Mall, both parties here gained 

and lost through the order, and both parties seek its vacatur. See NASD, 488 F.3d at 1067 (noting 

that the motion to vacate was opposed by the party that prevailed in the lower court 

proceedings); Bonner Mall, 513 U.S. at 18 (same). 

 Finally, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the public interest is furthered by settling 

and quieting litigation. E.g., Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Granting this motion will further that public interest. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to vacate its May 

23, 2014 order (ECF No. 37). 

III. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 The parties’ settlement agreement calls for this action to be dismissed with prejudice. 

The Quiet Title Act (QTA) provides that when the United States files a disclaimer of interest in 

real property prior to the commencement of trial and the “disclaimer is confirmed by order of the 

court, the jurisdiction of the district court [under the Quiet Title Act] shall cease . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2409a(e). Thus, the court’s confirmation of the disclaimer will divest the court of jurisdiction 

over plaintiffs’ claims brought under the QTA. Lee, 809 F.2d at 1409. 

 Additionally, plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claims can be dismissed 

under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Pedroza v. Lomas Auto 

Mall, Inc., 304 F.R.D. 307, 323 (D.N.M. 2014) (Rule 41 dismissal may be used to dismiss claims 

remaining in an action after a court order has surrendered jurisdiction over some claims) 

(discussing 8 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 41.21[1] (3d ed. 2012)). 

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service of an answer, by 

filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all parties who have appeared. Carter v. Beverly 

Case 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC Document 76 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 5
Case No. 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC: Order Approving Disclaimer and for Other Purposes - Page	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 

27 

28 

Hills Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 

1472–73 (9th Cir. 1986). The parties here have satisfied the requirements of Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ APA claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the court CONFIRMS the United States’ disclaimer of interest 

(ECF No. 74-1); VACATES the court’s May 23, 2014 order granting in part and denying in part 

defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37); and DISMISSES plaintiffs’ APA claims with 

prejudice. CASE CLOSED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 13, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02116-KJM-AC Document 76 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 5