Opinion ID: 3048175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Selection of a Fact Finder

Text: We review de novo Martinek’s entitlement to a jury trial. See KLK, 35 F.3d at 455. [3] Of the three statutory methods available to the United States for acquiring private land for public use through direct condemnation, Kirby Forest Inds., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 4 (1984), the Park Service used the “expeditious procedure” prescribed by 40 U.S.C. § 3114 to acquire Martinek’s mining claims. Under § 3114, title and right to possession vest immediately in the United States upon the government’s filing UNITED STATES v. MARTINEK 3865 of a declaration of taking and depositing an amount of money equal to the estimated value of the land. Id. at 4-5. The exact value of the land acquired is determined through subsequent judicial proceedings. [4] The form of proceedings in a direct condemnation action is governed by Rule 71A. Of particular relevance here is Rule 71A(h): “[i]f the action involves the exercise of the power of eminent domain under the law of the United States . . . any party may have a trial by jury of the issue of just compensation by filing a demand therefor within the time allowed for answer.” [5] Where the United States does not acquire privately owned land statutorily but instead physically enters into possession or institutes regulations that restrict the land’s use, the owner has a right to bring an “inverse condemnation” action to recover the value of the land. Kirby Forest, 467 U.S. at 4- 5. “Such a suit is ‘inverse’ because it is brought by the affected owner, not by the condemnor. The owner’s right to bring such a suit derives from the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to condemnation.” Id. at 5 n.6 (citations and quotations omitted). Express consent by the United States to a jury trial in direct condemnation proceedings does not extend to inverse condemnation actions brought under the MPA; compensation is instead determined by a trial to the court. KLK, 35 F.3d at 457. [6] Though the parties stipulated to a date of taking for each claim, they did not expressly state whether the condemnation was direct or inverse. Nevertheless, the stipulated single date of taking answers that question. The parties stipulated that the taking occurred before the declaration of taking was filed by the government on March 10, 1998.1 Prior to that 1 The dissent suggests a bifurcated approach. However, the parties expressly stipulated to a single taking. Additionally, the cases cited by the dissent to support bifurcation address situations where discrete property 3866 UNITED STATES v. MARTINEK date, any taking necessarily resulted from government restrictions on Martinek’s ability to mine his claims and is properly assessed as part of his inverse condemnation action. The just compensation issue is therefore part of the inverse condemnation action and Martinek had no right to a jury trial. We recognize that in some circumstances courts may fix the date of a direct taking prior to the date of the government’s filing of a declaration of taking. See United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17 (1958); United States v. Herrero, 416 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1969). For example, where the government assumes physical possession of land prior to instituting condemnation proceedings, the district court may fix the date of taking as the date of physical possession. See, e.g., Herrero, 416 F.2d at 947. However, that is not the case here, and Martinek provides no persuasive explanation as to why the district court should have applied a direct condemnation approach to a taking that Martinek stipulated occurred prior to the filing of the declaration of taking.