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 a nd 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 f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT CA SSA N D RA G A IL J OH NS ON ; T HE T HO UT HZ FAM I LY TR UST; B R YA N A. BUTHZ, a s TR USTE E, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee , F O R E S I T E E S C R O W I N C ., DO WNS T R E AM E XC HA NG E C OMP AN Y,

D efen d an t s. N o. 08- 56517 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - C V- 7 2 1 4 - J VS ( P J W) 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 o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a m e s V . S e l na , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r5, 2010** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED NO V 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST h e H o n o r ab le R ic h a r d D . C u d a h y , S e n io rU n ite d S ta te s C ir c u it *** J udge f orthe S e ve nth C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. W e not e thatthe spel l i ng of the T rustand T rust ee ’ s nam es has var i ed 1 thr oughoutthi s l i t i ga t i on. F orpurpos e s of c ons i s t e nc y , w e ha ve a dopt e d the v e r s io n o f

th e irn a m e s s e t f

o r th in th e b r ie f

s s u b m itte d to th is c o u r t. 2 B efo re: C U D A H Y , * * * W A R D L A W an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he appel l ant s C as sa nd raG ai l John son, the T ho uthz F am i l y T rust(“ T rust ”) , and B ry an A . B uthz (“ T rust ee ”) appeal the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j u d g m en to n th ei r q u i ett i t l e, w ro n g fu l l ev y, an d i n j u n ct i v e rel i ef cl ai m s. We 1 h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f i rm. I . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w hen i tdet erm i ned thatJohn son l ac ked s t a ndi ng t o br i ng a qui e t t i t l e act i on. A pl a i nt i f f br i ngi ng a qui e tt i t l e a c t i on in v o lv in g r e a l p r o p e r ty m u s t h a v e a le g a l in te r e s t in t h e p r o p e r ty . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 9 ( d ) ; J

uar ezv . Fe d. H

om e L oan Mor t

g. C or p. , N o . 1 0 - 2 5 4 2 , 2 0 1 0 WL 3 0 3 5 9 5 6 , a t * 4 ( C .D . C a l. A u g . 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) ; L e c h u z a V illa s W e s t v . C a l. C oas tal C om m ’n , 7 0 C a l . R p t r . 2 d 3 9 9 , 4 1 6 ( C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) . J o h n s o n f a ile d to es t abl i sh thatshe posse ss es an i nt er es ti n the prop erty a ti ss ue. H ence , she l ac ked s t a n d i n g t o a s s e r ta q u i e tt i t l e c l a i m. II .3

T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t err w h e n ith eld th at th e T ru st’s an d T ru stee ’s w ro n g fu l l ev y cl aim s w ere b arred b y th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. T h e ap p el l an t s’ w r ongf ul l e vy c l a i m s w e r e f

i l e d on M a y 13, 2008, 27 da y s a f t e rthe e xpi r a t i on of th e s ta tu te o f

lim i t a tio n s . See I . R . C . § 6532( c ) ( 1) - ( 2) . I n tha tc onne c t i on, the ap p el l an ts ’ cl ai m s d o n o trel at e b ack t o th e d at e o f th e o ri g i n al co m p l ai n tb ecau se th ey h av e n o t est ab l i sh ed th at th ei r cl ai m s sat i sfy an y o f th e co n d i t i o n s th at w o u ld p e rm it r e la tio n b a c k . Se e I n r e Sy ntex C or

p. Se c . L i t i

g. , 95 F . 3d 92 2, 93 5 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( s ta tin g th a t r e la t i o n b a c k in s itu a tio n s s u c h a s th e s e is p e rm is s ib le “o n ly w he n: 1) the or i gi na l c om pl a i ntga ve the de f e nda nta de qua t e not i c e of the c l a i m s of the ne w l y pr opos e d pl a i nt i f f ; 2) the r e l a t i on ba c k doe s notunf a i r l y pr e j udi c e the d e f e n d a n t; a n d 3 ) th e r e is a n id e n tity o f in te r e s t b e tw e e n t h e o r i g in a l a n d n e w ly p r o p o s e d p la in tif

f ” ) ; Zi nm an v . W

al

-M ar t Stor es , Inc. , No . 0 9 - 0 2 0 4 5 , 2 0 1 0 WL 2230449, a t*2 ( N . D . C a l . J une 1, 2010) ( s a m e ) . F i na l l y , A ppe l l a nt s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tthe gove rnm entf

a i l e d t o pr ovi de e vi de nc e e s t abl i s hi ng w he n the gove rnm e nt to o k a c tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to tr ig g e rth e s ta r t o f th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s c lo c k is f

la tly c ontr a di c t e d by the r e c or d.

II I.4

T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe A nt i - I nj unc t i on A c ts tr i ppe d i tof j ur i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r th e ap p e l l a n t s ’ c l a i ms f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f w a s p r o p e r . 26 U . S . C . § 7421( a ) . A ppe l l a nt s f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha t t h ei r c l a i m s f a l l w i thi n the lim ite d e x c e p tio n to th e A n ti- I n ju n c tio n A c tth a t w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d in Stone c i phe rv . B r ay , 6 5 3 F .2 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) , a n d s u b s e q u e n t c a s e s . T he appel l ant s’ concl usory an d u n su bst ant i at ed al l egat i on s a re i nsuffi ci entt o m ee t the i rbur de n of

s how i n g t h at t he r e w e r e no c i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h the gove rnm e ntc oul d pr e va i l ortha tthe y w oul d s uf f e ri rr e p arab l e ha rm abs e nt in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

. See Sokol ow v. U

ni ted Stat es , 16 9 F . 3d 66 3, 66 5 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). I V . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i o n w h en i tdeci ded the U ni t ed S ta te s ’ s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n w i t h o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See P artri dg e v . R ei ch , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; L ake at L as V egas Inves tors G rp. , Inc. v. P ac. M al i bu D e v . C or

p. , 93 3 F . 2d 72 4, 72 9 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). AF F I R ME D.