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

Heading: entitlement to a jury trial

Text: The government argues that Martinek waived his right to appeal the question of his right to a jury trial by failing to timely seek an interlocutory appeal of the issue and by stipulating to submit the case on written evidence without specifically reserving the issue. Failure to pursue an opportunity for interlocutory appeal normally does not constitute a waiver. See Nat’l Union Elec. Corp. v. Wilson, 434 F.2d 986, 988 (6th Cir. 1970); 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2322 (1982) (“Although it is possible to get intermediate review of a denial of jury trial by the devices just mentioned [including interlocutory appeal and mandamus], the party who wishes a jury is not required to proceed in this fashion. Alternatively, the party may have review of the denial of a jury on an appeal from the final judgment.” (footnotes omitted)). In the absence of any indication that Martinek 3864 UNITED STATES v. MARTINEK affirmatively waived his rights to a post-judgment appeal of this issue, his failure to timely pursue an interlocutory appeal did not waive his right to appeal the question of his right to a jury trial. [1] In White v. McGinnis, 903 F.2d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc), we held that “knowing participation in a bench trial without objection is sufficient to constitute a jury waiver.” However, we have declined to expand White “to find a waiver of a right to a jury trial where a plaintiff actively contests the district court’s decision to refuse the demand.” United States v. Cal. Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d 1374, 1380 (9th Cir. 1997). A “continuing objection” is sufficient to preserve the right to a jury trial, notwithstanding a party’s assent to a pretrial order for a bench trial. See United States v. Nordbrock, 941 F.2d 947, 949-50 (9th Cir. 1991). [2] Although Mobile Home and Nordbrock arise in the context of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39 rather than in the Rule 71A context, the waiver principles are analogous. Martinek’s stipulation did not waive his appeal rights, particularly given the saving clause in the stipulation and the fact that the district court did not interpret the stipulation as a waiver of Martinek’s request for a jury trial. We therefore have appellate jurisdiction.
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.