Opinion ID: 2756499
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The United States’ Answer

Text: The Cave Lakes roads (denominated as K1070, K1075, K1087 and K1088) are four short roads in southwestern Kane County crossing BLM-administered land. All four were designated as “open” under the Kanab Field Plan. Kane I, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 1354. Paragraph 29 of Kane County’s amended complaint stated: “After 1866 and prior to the repeal of R.S. 2477 on October 21, 1976, Kane County, by and on behalf of the public, accepted R.S. 2477 rights-of-way for . . . the Cave Lakes roads.” JT App. 41. The United States’ answer as to this paragraph stated: “The allegations . . . are legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the United States lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.” Id. at 113. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5), this response is treated as a denial. The district court found this denial of the allegations created a “disputed title” sufficient for jurisdiction under the QTA. Kane I, 934 F. Supp. 2d at 1358. We disagree. The district court likened the United States’ answer to Alaska, where the Ninth Circuit held that a past claim of interest before an administrative law judge as to the Nation and Kandik Rivers amounted to a present “cloud” on the plaintiff’s title. 201 F.3d at 1162. However, Alaska itself found no jurisdiction over the QTA claim to the Black River where, as here, the United States refused to admit or deny allegations of the river’s navigability at the pleading stage - 13 - because the allegations “consist[ed] of conclusions of law not requiring an answer.” Id. at 1163–65. Alaska thus suggests that a failure to admit allegations cannot alone suffice to show a “disputed title” under § 2409a(a). Though a disclaimer of title by the United States does operate to remove the jurisdiction of the court under the QTA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(e), a disclaimer is not necessary for the United States to challenge jurisdiction under § 2409a(a). See Leisnoi I, 170 F.3d at 1192 (“Subsection (a) is the one that confers jurisdiction . . . . Nothing in subsection (e) qualifies those requirements.”). Moreover, as a practical matter, requiring the United States to either admit allegations or waive sovereign immunity under § 2409a(a) would place a tremendous and unfair burden upon it at the pleading stage. Thus, we conclude the United States’ answer is insufficient to constitute a “disputed title” under § 2409a(a).