N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ITY OF SANTA M ONIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55583 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-08046-JFW
VB K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

11, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. The C ity of San ta M onic a

(the “ C ity ” ) sue d the Unite d State s, the Fe de ra l Avia tion Administra

tion (“ FAA” ), and the FAA Adm inistra t or (c o lle c tive ly , the

“ Unite d State s” ) to quie t

title to a pproxim at e ly

168 a c re s of la

nd (the “ Airport Land” ) on whic h

the Santa M onic a M unic ipa l Airport now sits. The distric t c ourt 

# FIL ED
MAY16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.he ld tha

t the C ity ’ s suit wa s tim e -barre d unde r the Quie t Title Ac t’ s twe lve -y e ar sta tute of lim ita

tions, 28 U.S.C . § 2409a (g), and dism isse d the c om pla int with pre j udic e unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(1). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. R e v ie wing de nov o , Unite d State s v . Pe ninsula C ommc ’ns, Inc
. , 287 F.3d 832, 836 (9th C ir. 2002), we re ve rse . 1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in c onc l uding tha t the sta t ute of lim ita

tions issue is not ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d w ith the m e rits of the C i ty ’ s Quie t Title Ac t c la im
. W he n jurisdic t iona l a

nd substa ntive issue s a

re so inte rtwine d tha

t the que s tion of jurisdic tion is de

pe nde nt on the m e rits, it is “ both prope r and ne c e ssa

ry for the tria l
c ourt first to re solve the m e rits of the c la im ” to de te rm ine its own jurisdiction. Se e , e .g. , Augustine

v . Unite d State

s , 704 F.2d 1074, 1077-79 (9th C ir. 1983); se e also Young v . Unite d State

s , 769 F.3d 1047, 1052-53 (9th C ir. 2014). W e c annot de te rm ine on this re c ord whe the r the C i ty kne w or should ha

ve known tha

t, unde r the 1948 Instrum e nt of Tra nsfe r, title to the Airport La nd would
re ve rt to the Unite d State s if the la nd e ve r c e a s e d to be use d a s a n a irport. The pa rtie s do not dispute

tha t the C ity owne d title to the Airport La nd in fe e sim

ple a t the t im e tha

t the Unite d State s a

nd the C i ty

e x e c u te d the R

unwa y an d Golf C ourse Le a se s in 1941. B oth le a se s we re se t to te rm inate twe lve m onths a fte r the (the nunknown) e nd da

te of Proc lam ation 2487, a nd the C ity argue s tha

t ne i the r le a se 2transfe rre d title of its la nd to the Unite d State s. W hile the c onve y anc e s in the Instrum e nt of Tra

nsfe r m ust “be use d for public a irport purpose s for the use and be ne fit of the public ,” t

hose re s tric t ions a

pplie d to “ the la

nd, buildings, struc

ture s, im prove m e nts a

nd e quipm e nt in w hic h this instrume nt transfe r

s any inte re

st ” (e m pha sis a dde d ). Sim ila

rly , while the Instrum e nt of Tra nsfe r re stric ts c e rta in prope rty from be ing “ use d , le a se d, sold, sa lva ge d or dispose d of . . . for othe r tha n
a irport purpose s” without the Unite d State s’ c onse nt, the doc um e n t a ga in m a de
c le ar that suc h re stric tions a p plie d to the “ prope rty t

ransfe rre d by

this instrume

nt ” (e m pha sis a dde d ). The re ve rte r c la use like wise a

p plie d to “ the title , right of posse s sion a

nd a ll othe r rights transfe rre d by this instrume

nt ” (e m pha sis a dde d). Give n the la

n gua g e in the Instrum e nt of Tra nsfe r, the pa

rtie s’ a lle ge d prope rty inte re s ts a t the tim e of the origina l le a se s, a nd e vide nc e of the pa

rtie s’ c onduc t, the que stion of whe the r the C i ty ha d “ n otic e ” of the Unite d State s’ c l a im of a pe rpe tua l
re ve rsiona

ry inte re st in theAirport La nd is ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d with the ultim a te sc o pe and va lidity of tha t c la im
. Augustine , 704 F.2d a t 1078-79; se e also Shultz v . De

pt. of Army , 886 F.2d 1157, 1160 (9th C ir. 1989). C ontra ry to the Unite d State s ’ argum e nts, the fa c t tha t the Instrum e nt of Transfe r’ s re stric tions “ run with thela nd” doe s not c onc lusive ly e sta blish notic e of
a pe rpe tua l re ve rsiona

ry inte re s t in the title to the Airport La nd itse lf. While tha

t 3la

ngua ge like ly

im pose s the sa

m e re quire m e nts se t forth in theInstrum e nt of Transfe r on subse que nt owne rs a nd a ssigns, wec annot —

without re a c hing the
m e rits — de t e rm ine what a re a sona ble la ndowne r should ha

ve known a

bout the Unite d State s’ c la i m

in 1948. Se e

, e .g. , C itize ns for C

ov e n ant C

omplianc e v . Ande rson , 906 P.2d 1314, 1318 (C a l. 1995); se ealso Shultz , 886 F.2d a t 1160. Sim ila rly , without re a c hing the m e rits, we c annot c onc lude tha t re c ording the Instrum e nt of Tra

nsfe r a s a quitc la im de e d or using the phra se “ title ” e sta

blishe d notic e of a

pe rpe tua l re ve rsiona

ry inte re st in theAirport La nd itse l f; a

quitc la im de e d sim p ly re fle c ts the te rm i nation of a c la im to a n inte re st. M ore o ve r, a quitc la im de e d “ ope ra te s to tra

nsfe r only what right, title

and inte re st the grantor
m ay have ” in the first pla c e . Se e , e .g. , H agan v . Gardne r , 283 F.2d 643, 646 (9th C ir. 1960). Inde e d, the m e rits a

nd notic e issue s in this c a se m a y ultim a te ly

de pe nd on the d ispute d signific anc e of the pa rtie s’ c onduc t be twe e n W o rld W ar II a nd 2008. For e xam ple , whe n the C ity

re que ste d in 1952 tha

t the Unite d State s re le a se c e rta in pa rc e ls of the la

nd from re stric tions in the

Instrum e nt of Tra

nsfe r, the surre nde re d R unwa y and Golf C ourse le a se s ha d not y e t e xpire d. Thus, whe the r the C i ty obta ine d the 1952 re le a se be c a use the Instrum e nt of Tra nsfe r c onve y e d a

n
une xpire d le a se hold inte re st a nd fe de ra l im

p rove m e nts (a s the C ity

argue s), or a 4re ve rsiona

ry inte re st in title

to the Airport La

nd itse lf (a s the Unite d

Stat e s a rgue s), is ine xtric a

bly inte rtwine d with whic h pa rty ’ s re a d ing of the Instrum e nt of Tra nsfe r is ultim a te ly

c o rre c t. The sa m e is true of the othe r c onduc t in the re c o rd. For insta n c e , the C a lifornia Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s Opinion from

1975 doe s not de finitive ly show tha t the C ity kne w of the Unite d State s’ c la im e d inte re st in title

to the Airport La

nd. Like the C ity

Attorne y ’ s opinion in 1962, the Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s c onc lusion wa s ba se d on both the

Instrum e nt of Tra

nsfe r and num e rous gra

nt a gre e m e nts
re stric ting the C ity ’ s use of a irport prope rty whic h, at the tim e , still m ay have
c onta ine d W orld W ar II im p rove m e nts m a de by

the Unite d State s. The Attorne y Ge ne ra l’ s opinion sta

te d only tha t the C ity c ould not “ at

the pre se nt tim e ” c e a se using thela

nd for a i rport purpose s. It did not me ntion there ve rte r c la use . And whe the r the Unite d State s la te r disc la im e d its purporte d inte re st in the 1984 Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e nt like wise involve s dispute d que stions of fa c t pote ntia lly im plic a t ing both the

m e rits of the Quie t Title Ac t c la im and the “ notic e ” issue s. Se e Mic he l v . Unite d State s , 65 F.3d 130, 133 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ) (“ If the gove rnm e nt ha s a

ppa re ntly a ba n done d a ny c la i m it onc e a sse rte d, a

nd the n it
re a s se rts a

c la im , the late r a sse rtion is a ne w c la im and the sta

tute of lim ita

tions for
an a c tion ba se d on tha

t c la im a c c rue s whe n it is a sse rte d.” ); Shultz , 886 F.2d a t 51061. B e c a u se the se issue s “ go to the he art of” the m e rits, the distric t c ourt e rre d by pre m a ture ly

dism issing this a

c tion on jurisdict iona l grounds. S e e Augustine , 704 F.2d a

t 1078-79; c

f . Young , 769 F.3d a

t 1052 (“ In this c a se , the que stion whe the r the Park Se rvic e kne w or should ha ve known of theha z ard c re a te d by the transform e r is a

dispute d issue of jurisdic tiona l fa c t tha t is ‘ so inte rtwine d’ with the substa ntive dispute tha

t re solution of the

form e r de p e nds, a

t le a st in pa

rt, on
re solution of the

latte r.” ). 1 2. For sim i la

r re a sons, the distric t c o urt e rre d in holding tha t the Instrum e nt of Tra

nsfe r “ c loude d” title to the Airport La nd. The twe lve -y e ar lim ita tion pe riod in 28 U.S.C . § 2409a (g) “ be gins whe n a c la im of title in fa

vor of the U nite d State s be c om e s adv e rse to the pla intiff.” Le i snoi, Inc . v . Unite d State

s , 267 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th C ir. 2001) (e m pha sis a dde d ) (c iting Mic h e l , 65 F.3d a t 131-32). Thus, e ve n though the Unite d State s and the C ity both ope nly

c la im e d prope rty inte re sts in the

a irport, tha

t fa c t a lone did not sta

rt the sta tute of lim ita tions unle ss the c la im e d prope rty inte re sts c o nflic te d. Se e

, e .g. , M ic he l , 65 F.3d at 132 (c iting W

e r ne r v . Unite d State

s , 9 F.3d 1514, 1516 (11th C ir. 1993));

1 B y c o ntra st, in a c a s e c i te d

by the pa rtie s, K ingman Re e

f Atoll Inv e

stme nts, LLC v . Unite d State

s , the re c o rd wa s c le ar that the pla intiff “ h a d a c tua l notic e tha

t the U nite d State s c la im e d a n inte re st in Kingman re e f” be c a use the pla intiff him se lf “ a c knowle dge d tha t . . . owne rship [of the prope rty ] pre sum a bly re sts with the State or Navy

De pa rtm e n t.” 541 F.3d 1189, 1197 (9th C ir. 2008).

6Shultz , 886 F.3d a t 1160-61. He re , the Unite d State s’ a lle ge d c ontinge nt
re ve rsiona

ry inte re sts c ould ha

ve be e n c onsiste nt with the C ity re ta ining fe e sim

ple title to the Airport La

n d. Mc Farland v . N

orton , 425 F.3d 724, 727-28 (9th C ir. 2005); N arramore v . Unite d State

s , 852 F.2d 485, 492 (9th C ir. 1988), v ac ate d and
re mande d on othe r grounds , 960 F.2d 1048 (Fe d. C ir. 1992). At this sta ge , nothing in the

re c ord c onc l usive ly shows othe rwise
. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

7