Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06019/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06019-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

14.02 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR )

LESS IN THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-03-6019 REC LJO

ORDER REQUIRING CITATION TO

AUTHORITY.

Plaintiff United States of America’s motion to exclude

expert testimony and request for an order establishing the burden

of proof at trial was set for hearing on August 1, 2005. The

parties informed the court of a tentative stipulation as to the

valuation of the property that was filed in conjunction with

their joint pretrial conference statement. See Doc. 128.

According to the United States, given the judgment on the

pleadings entered on June 21, 2004, see Doc. 95, and the

stipulation as to the valuation of the property, “no viable

factual issues remain in this dispute” and “no points of law

remain to be tried in this dispute.” Doc. 128 at 5, 8. This,

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 6
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

according to the United States’ counsel, would render their

motion to exclude moot. 

Counsel for defendants Maxine H. Sawyer, Mark Sawyer,

Harriet Leonard, Charles Sawyer, Andrew Klemm, Bradley Leonard,

Ramon Echeveste, and Cecelia Echeveste (“Group Defendants”)

asserted to the contrary. Group Defendants state in the joint

pretrial conference statement that there are both factual and

legal issues remaining to be tried. The factual issues as listed

in the pretrial conferences statement are:

A. Whether the United States served the Order for

Delivery on “all persons in possession or control

. . .” of the subject property;

B. Whether the United States had and has the

authority to take the property; 

C. Whether there is anything in the legislative

mandate which allows WAPA to “site or situate

electrical transmission lines within a given

state;

D. Whether at the time of the taking the State of

California had approved construction of the Path

15 upgrade; 

E. Whether at the time of the taking there was any

public benefit to building the Path 15 upgrade;

and

F. Whether in light of the largely private nature of

the joint venture and the findings of the State of

California, the proposed taking constituted a

taking for public use.

See Doc. 128 at 5-6. The legal issues are:

A. Was there any federal authority, legislatively or

otherwise, for the taking?

B. Did the absense of construction authority on the

part of the State of California mean that the

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 6
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

 The court held that Group Defendants’ fifth, sixth and 1

eight affirmative defenses were redundant of those listed. See

Doc. 95 at 36, 39.

3

federal government lacked authority for the

taking?

C. Did and does the government have the authority to

condemn the property of Group Defendants under the

congressional statutory authority cited by the

government?

D. Did and does WAPA have authority to site or

situate a transmission line and specifically the

transmission line at issue in the complaint here?

E. Did WAPA comply with all applicable law [sic]

necessary for the taking?

F. Was there a valid Congressional appropriation of

funds for the project identified in the

government’s complaint?

See Doc. 128 at 8-9.

The Order Granting Judgment on the Pleadings

On June 21, 2004, this court granted the United States’

motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting in turn each of

the eight affirmative defenses raised by Group Defendants. These

defenses included lack of authority (one), lack of public use

(three), failure to receive permission from California

authorities (two), arbitrary / capriciousness (four), and failure

to join proper parties (seven). See Doc. 95 at 13-14, 27, 36- 1

37. 

In rejecting the first defense, the court made the following

statements: “the court has reviewed all of the relevant statutes

and the arguments of the parties. The court concludes that WAPA

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 6
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

was fully authorized by federal law to construct the Path 15

Project and to condemn the power line transmission easement for

it.” Doc. 95 at 14. “[A]uthorization existed at beginning &

continues to exist.” Id. at 18. 

WAPA has inherited the power to condemn specifically

for the Central Valley Project as well as through the

general authority granted to it as a result of the

multi-purpose aspect of the Federal reclamation law,

which includes the right to purchase and condemn real

property for transmission lines and related facilities. 

In addition, WAPA has the power to condemn coextensive

with its power to purchase . . ..

Id. at 25. 

In rejecting the third defense the court stated: “The court

concludes that the United States is entitled to judgment on the

pleadings with regard to this affirmative defense.” Id. at 26. 

In rejecting the second defense the court concluded “that

defendants have waived this aspect of the affirmative defense. 

Furthermore, even if the court did not conclude defendants had

waived it, the court is persuaded that the affirmative defense as

expanded in their brief is without merit.” Id. at 30. In

rejecting the fourth defense the court found that “the arguments

made by defendants in opposition to this motion do not meet the

standard allowing arbitrary and capricious action to void a

condemnation.” Id. at 35. In rejecting the seventh defense the

court concluded that the issue of joinder “is not a valid

affirmative defense to this condemnation action.” Id. at 37. 

The court also held that there is “no question that the Complaint

alleges all that is required by Rule 71A.” Id. at 39.

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 4 of 6
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

Request for Authority

It appears to the court that the issues raised by Group

Defendants in the joint pretrial conference statement have, as

the United States asserts, previously been decided by this court

and that if the parties stipulate to the value of the property,

there are no issues left for trial. Under Rule 71A of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs condemnation

proceedings, a defendant may file an answer stating all defenses

to the taking of the property. “No other pleading or motion

asserting any additional defense or objection shall be allowed.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71A(e). 

Rule 71A provides only for a trial on the issue of just

compensation; it does not provide for a trial on the issue of the

taking itself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 71A(e). Rule 71A “contemplates a

two-step procedure. In the first step, the government announces

what land it needs, and the landowners are given a full

opportunity to present, in their answers, objections or defenses

they have to the taking. Any defenses so raised are ruled upon

by the court.” Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. 19.623 Acres of Land,

536 F.2d 566, 569 (3d Cir. 1976). This step has been completed

here. “The amount to be paid . . . is determined only in the

second stage of the procedure. A separate trial is held to

adjudicate the item of remuneration.” Id. This step would be

unnecessary if the parties have indeed stipulated to the value of

the property. 

Group Defendants are ordered to file a brief of no more than

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 5 of 6
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

6

four pages explaining under what legal authority they seek to

proceed, i.e. what case or statute allows Group Defendants to

raise issues previously asserted as affirmative defenses on which

judgment on the pleadings has already been entered and what

authority allows Group Defendants to have a trial on any issue

other than compensation. Such filing is due by close of business

on Friday, August 5, 2005. The United States shall have two

business days in which to file any responsive pleading.

Further proceedings in this case shall be by order of this

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

ia40ij UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06019-REC -LJO Document 130 Filed 08/02/05 Page 6 of 6