N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. 2.739 AC R ES OF LAND, m ore or le ss, situa te d in the C ity

of Noga le s, C ounty

of Santa C ruz , State of Ariz o na , a nd HOLY C R OSS HOSPITAL, INC ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 13-15953

D.C . No. 4:09-c v-00488-AW TDTF M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na A. W a l la c e Ta shim a , Se nior C irc uit Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN and WA TFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R OTHSTEIN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED JUL 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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. ** The Honora

ble B arbara Ja c obs R othste in, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 5

This is a m atte r in whic h Appe lla

nts c onte s t the va luat ion of la nd be ing c onde m ne d by Appe lle e . The issue s on a ppe a l involvethe distric t c ourt judge ’ s rulings on the

a dm issibility

of c e rta in te stim ony

an d a ppropria te ne ss of two propose d jury i nstruc tions. 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a dm itting the te stim ony of Philip Arie s, a

re a l e sta te broke r but not a

n a ppra ise r, a s to the va lue of the subje c t prope rty . Holy

C ross’ own re a l e sta

te broke r, Ga

brie l Ga ste lum , a lso te stifie d a s to the va lue of the prope rty , a n d Arie s ’ te stim ony

wa s e lic ite d a s a re sponse . Any

issue s with re spe c t to Arie s’ qua lific ations thus a pply to both pa rtie s ’ e xpe rts. Se e Unite d State s v . 4.85 Ac re

s of Land , 546 F.3d 613, 617 (9th C ir. 2008) (re quiring pre

judic e to re v e rse e vide ntia ry rulings). Judic ia l e s toppe l doe s not a pply . The gove rnm e nt’ s opposition brie f prom ise d tha t Arie s would not te stify

a s to the “ v a l ue of the subje c t prope rty in the be fore and a fte r c ondition,”and at the m otion in lim ine he aring, the gove rnm e nt prom ise d tha t “ Arie s will not te stify

a s to a n ultim ate opinion of value
. He ’ s not going to sa

y that the prope rty is worth a dolla r a squa re foot or pla c e som e va lue on the p rope rty .” Arie s did not offe r a be fore -an d-a fte r va luation a t tria l. Arie s did a sse rt a va luation of $1 pe r squa

re foot, but heat first a

ppe a re d to disc uss only

the a pproxim ate l y

$1 pe r squa

re foot pric e of a

pre vious sa le of Holy

C ross prope rty ,Pa ge 3 of 5

and he late r a

pplie d this va lue to the subje c t prope rty only in re sponse to a

que stion c onc e rning Ga s te lum ’ s $2 to $2.50 va luation. Thegove rnm e nt ga i ne d no unfa ir a dva nta ge from

the $1 va luation, be c a

use the gove rnm e n t ha d a sse rte d, at the
m otion in lim

ine he aring, tha

t Arie s’ opinion wa s tha

t the bulk of the la

nd “ isn’ t worth the c ost of im

prove m e nt” at a ll. C

f. Hamilton v
. State

Farm Fire

& C as. C o. , 270 F.3d 778, 783 (9th C ir. 2001). Arie s’ opinion tha t the hospita l prope rty wa s “ ba sic a lly

use le ss” ha d pre viously

be e n disc lose d. Any e rror that m ay have re sulte d from a dm ission of Arie s’ undisc lose d c a lc ulat ions supporting his opinion of the prope rty ’ s va lue wa s not pre judic ia l. Arie s’ opinion tha

t the la nd wa s worthle ss wa s a lso supporte d by his sta t e m e nts re ga rding the diffic u l ty

of a c c e ss to thesubje c t prope rty an d pote ntia l C le an W ate r Ac t pe rm itting issue s a ssoc iat e d with a c c e ss. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a dm itting Arie s’ te stim ony a bout theIHOP sa le
. Tha

t sa l e wa s not use d a s a

c o m pa ra ble , a nd no pre j udic e would ha

ve re sulte d if it ha d, give n its $12 per squa re foot sa le pric e . 3. Holy C ross a

rgue s tha t te stim ony

re ga rding Holy

C ross’ e arlie r sa le to the A riz ona

De pa rtm e n t of Tra

n sporta tion (ADOT) a

nd ADOT’ s sa le to the Ge ne ra l Se rvic e s Adm inistra tion (GSA) should ha

ve be e n e xc lude d be c a

use of the buy e rs’ c onde m

nation powe rs. Howe ve r, it wa s not a n a b use of disc re tion to a dm itPa ge 4 of 5

the s a le to ADOT, be c a

use tha t sa le wa s not use d a s a

c om pa ra ble and wa s inste a d offe re d to re but te s tim ony tha t Holy C ross wa s re luc ta

nt to se ll its property . Tha t sa le wa s prope rly disc lose d in a le tte r by Arie s tha

t Holy C ross a tta c he d to its
m otion to e xc lude Arie s’ te s tim ony . It wa s a lso not a n a buse of disc re t ion to a dm it the s a le to GSA, give n the gove rnm e nt’ s e vide nc e tha t the sa le ha d be e n volunta ry . Se e Unite d State

s v . 10.48 Ac re

s of Land , 621 F.2d 338, 339 (9th C ir. 1980). 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in re

je c ting Holy

C ross’ propose d Jury Instruc tions Nos. 6 a

nd 7. Holy

C ross a rgue s tha t the jury should have be e n instruc t e d tha

t Holy C ross’ sa le to ADOT a

nd ADOT’ s sa le to the GSA
m ight ha v e be e n im

pa c te d by c onde m

nation blight. B ut the propose d instruc tions are n ot re sponsiveto tha

t c onc e rn, be c a

use the y instruc t the jury to c onside r the pote ntia l im

pa c t of c o nde m

nation only

on the va l uation of thesubje c t prope rty , not on tha t of c om p ara ble sa le s. 5. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in a llowing Ja y Va nc e to c a libra te his va luat ion by

c onside ring diffe re nc e s in de ve lopm e n t c osts be t we e n the c om pa ra ble and subje c t p rope rtie s. Se e Unite d State s v . 100 Ac r e

s of Land , 468 F.2d 1261, 1266 (9th C ir. 1972) (a llowing c onside ra tion of se lling, a d ve rtising, de ve lopm e nt, a

nd othe r e xpe nse s to e nsure tha t c o m pa ra ble sa le s we re inde e d c om pa ra ble ). The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly found tha

t Va n c e ha d not double
-Pa ge 5 of 5

c ounte d de ve lopm e n t

c osts, but had inste a d de duc te d $1 pe r squa re foot in a ddition to the pre vious re d

u c tion to a c c ount for the subje c t prope rty ’ s c om pa ra tive l y gre ate r topogra

phy issue s. AFFIRM E D.