T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A V I S T A C O R P O R A T I O N I N C ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. S AN DE R S C OU NT Y; DO R R I E N H . W O L F E ; D IA N E L A R S O N ; L E S L IE RI CKEY; SE AN M . ST EP HENS; J AM ES R. D O Y LE; BO N N I E M . SH A RP; RONA LD GENE SHARP; RONA LD SCO TT SH A RP; G REG O RY STEW A RT SH A RP, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35722 D . C. N o . 9 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 2 0 1 - J CL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na J e r e m i a h C . L y nc h, M a gi s tr a t e J udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r4, 2010 ** P or t l a nd, O r e gon 

# FI LED DE C 10 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he H onor abl e J a m e s P . J one s , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

V i r gi ni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 2 B e f o r e : W . F L E T C H E R a n d F I S H E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d J O N E S , D i stri ctJudg e. *** A vi s t aC orpor a t i on ( “ A vi s t a ” ) appe a l s the M a gi s tr a t e J udge ’ s de c i s i on d e n y in g it le a v e to a m e n d its c o m p la in t to a d d ac la im u n d e rth e Q u ie t T itle A c t, 28 U . S . C . § 2 40 9a, t o q ui ett i t l e i n a form erra i l road ri gh tof w ay . T he ri gh tof w ay i s pot ent i al l y ow ned b y e i ther the desc endant s of A rthu r H am pt on (“ Indi vi du al D e f e n d a n ts ” ) o rth e U n ite d S ta te s , b u t n o t b y A v is ta . T h e M a g is tr a te J u d g e h e ld tha tourde c i s i on i n A v is ta C o r p o r a tio n I

n c . v . W o lfe , 54 9 F . 3d 12 39 (9th C i r. 2008) , w hi c h c onc l ude d tha tA vi s t aha d no c l a i m t o t i t l e i n a ny pa r tof the r i ghtof w a y a t is s u e , le f

t A v is taw ith o u t A r tic le I I I s ta n d in g to b r in g aQ u ie t T itle c la im . A v is taa r g u e s th a t its e c o n o m ic in te r e s t in th e o u tc o m e o f th e o w n e r s h ip d is p u te betw ee n the Indi vi du al D ef endant s and the U ni t ed S t at es gi ves i tA rt i cl e I II s t a ndi ng, a nd i t s ow ne r s hi p of af l ow a ge e a s e m e ntove rpa rtof the di s put e d r i ghtof w ayconfers j uri sdi ct i on on i t s s ui tun der the Q ui etT i t l e A ct . A l tho ug h w e a gree w i th A vi st a thati thas A rt i cl e I II st andi ng , w e a ff i rm on the al t ernat e groun d that the Q ui e tT i t l e A c tdoe s notc onf e rj ur i s di c t i on ove ras ui tt o qui e tt i t l e i n l a nd d i sp u t ed b etw een th e U n i t ed S t at es an d a th i rd p arty. A v is tad o e s h a v e A r tic le I I I s ta n d in g to b r in g its Q u ie t T itle A c t c la im . A vi s t ai s a dve r s e l y a f

f e c t e d e c onom i c a l l y by notknow i ng the ow ne rof the r i ghtof3

w ay . T hi s a dv er se ef

fe ctconst i tut es i nj ury i n fac t . T he i nj ury t o A vi st a i s c ause d by the l a c k of

r e s ol ut i on of

the que s t i on of

l a nd ow ne r s hi p. T he r e que s t e d r e l i e f of re sol ut i on of the t i t l e di sput e a nd a det erm i nat i on of the ow ner of the ri gh tof w ay w o u ld r e d r e s s th a t in

ju ry . T h u s A v is tah a s A r tic le I I I s ta n d in g . See L uj an v. D e fe n de rs o f W ild life , 50 4 U . S . 55 5, 56 0-61 (199 2). T he Q ui e tT i t l e A c t , how e ve r , doe s notc onf e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rac l a i m by A vi st a t o q ui ett i t l e i n a di sput e betw ee n the U ni t ed S t at es and the Indi vi du al D ef endant s. W e have s t at ed that“ for i ni t i al j uri sdi ct i on t o l i e [ un der the Q ui et T i t l e A c t ] the r e m us tbe ac onf l i c ti n t i t l e be tw e e n the U ni t e d S t a t e s a nd the pl ai nt i ff . ” L eisnoi, Inc. v. U

ni ted Stat es , 17 0 F . 3d 11 88 , 11 91 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). In the pr e s e ntc a s e , no s uc h c onf l i c te xi s t s . A l though A vi s t adoe s ha ve af l ow a ge e a s e m e n t o v e rp a r t o f

th e r ig h t o f

w a y , A v is ta ’s o w n e r s h ip o f th e e a s e m e n t is un cont es t ed and canno tform the basi s f or l i t i gat i on un der the Q ui etT i t l e A ctov er an u n re lated ti tl e d isp u te b etw ee n o th erp ar ti es . W e s ym p ath ize w ith A v ista’s desi re t o h ave the t i t l e di sput e betw ee n the Indi vi du al D ef endant s and the U ni t ed S ta te s r e s o lv e d , b u t th e Q u ie t T itle A c t d o e s n o t e n ab le A v is tato f o r c e its r e s ol ut i on. F u r th e rm o r e , Metropo l i tan W at erD istri ct

of So uthern C al i

f orni a v. U

ni ted Stat es , 830 F . 2d 139 ( 9th C i r . 1987) , a nd S ta te o f A la s ka v . B a b b itt , 38 F . 3d 1068 ( 1994) , do notappl y . T hos e c a s e s c onc e rne d the Q ui e tT i t l e A c t ’ s e xc l us i on of4

j uri sdi ct i on ov erdi sput es i nv ol vi ng N at i ve A m er i can t erri t ory, and thu s w er e bas ed on the “ fund am ent al autho ri ty of the S ec re t ary t o est abl i sh re se rvat i on bo un dari es and t o p rot ec tthe prop erty i nt er es t s of the Indi an tri bes. ” Metropo l i tan W at er D istri ct , 8 3 0 F .2 d a t 1 4 4 . S u c h c o n c e rn s a r e n o t r e le v a n t to th is c a s e . A vi s t aa r gue s tha tthe M a gi s tr a t e J udge ’ s de c i s i on de vi a t e d f r om the m andat e i n o ur pri or deci si on . W e di sa gree . O ur m andat e i ncl ud es al l i ss ues

“ deci ded exp l i ci t l y or by nec es saryi m pl i ca t i on . ” In re B everl y Hi l l s B a n co rp , 752 F . 2d 13 34 , 13 37 (9th C i r. 19 84 ). A vi st a c i t es ca se s i n w hi ch the di stri ctcourt d ir e c tly v io la te d o u rin s tru c tio n s . See U ni ted Stat es v. C arpent er , 298 F . 3d 1122, 1 1 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; U ni te d State s v . P aul , 5 6 1 F .3 d9 7 0 , 9 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . O urpr e vi ous de c i s i on i n thi s c a s e , how e ve r , l i s t e d i s s ue s w e w e r e notr e a c hi ng, but it d id n o t s p e c if

ic a lly in s tru c t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d o an y th in g . See A v is ta , 549 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 2 ( “le a v [ in g it] to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d e te rm in e ” u n r e s o lv e d is s u e s ) . T hi s di d notne c e s s a r i l y i m pl y ac onc l us i on tha tA vi s t aha d s t a ndi ng t o br i ng a Q ui etT i t l e A ctcl ai m , or thatthe Q ui etT i t l e A ctconferr ed j uri sdi ct i on ov er A v is ta ’s c a s e . AF F I RME D.