Barcellos & Wolfsen, Inc. v. Westlands Water Dist.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 79-106-EDP.,CV 79-106-EDP. |
| Citation | 491 F. Supp. 263 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | BARCELLOS & WOLFSEN, INC.; Boston Ranch Company; Fabry Farms, Inc.; Marks Grain, Inc.; Edwin R. O'Neill; O'Neill Livestock Company; Valle Verde, Inc.; Plaintiffs, v. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT; John Blackburn; Price Giffen & Associates; Wayne Dedman; Jim Lowe, Inc.; Cinco Farms, Inc.; Brughelli Farms; Polvadero Farms; R & N Farms; Richard Swearingen; Three Rocks Ranch; United States of America; Department of Interior; Bureau of Reclamation; Cecil D. Andrus; Guy R. Martin; R. Keith Higginson; Billy E. Martin; Defendants. WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, Counterclaimant and Cross-Claimant, v. BARCELLOS & WOLFSEN, INC. et al., Counterclaim and Cross-Claim Defendants. |
Donnelly, Clark & Chase by Robert M. Newell, Jr., and William M. Smiland, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs and counterclaim and cross-claim defendants.
Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedmann & Girard by Adolph Moskovitz, Sacramento, Cal., for defendant and counterclaimant and cross-claimant Westlands Water District.
Berryhill, Kuney & Burckhardt by Kenneth A. Kuney, Tulare, Cal., for defendants, John Blackburn, Price Giffen & Associates, Wayne Dedman, Jim Lowe, Inc., and Cinco Farms, Inc.
Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan by Forrest A. Plant and Jack V. Lovell, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants, Brughelli Farms and Richard Swearingen.
Herman Sillas, U. S. Atty. by Solomon E. Robinson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants, United States of America, Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cecil D. Andrus, Guy R. Martin, R. Keith Higginson, and Billy E. Martin.
The motion of the United States of America, Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cecil D. Andrus, Guy R. Martin, R. Keith Higginson and Bill E. Martin, hereinafter referred to as "The Federal Defendants" to dismiss the plaintiff's Third Amendment Complaint and Supplemental Complaint came on for hearing before the Court on Monday, March 31, 1980. Calendared for hearing at the same time and heard simultaneously with the foregoing motion was the motion of the United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Cecil D. Andrus, Guy R. Martin, R. Keith Higginson and Bill E. Martin, hereinafter referred to as "The Federal Cross-Claim Defendants," motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and Cross-Claim filed against The Federal Cross-Claim Defendants by the defendant Westlands Water District, hereinafter referred to as "Westlands".
The thrust of the Federal Defendant's motion as against the plaintiffs attacked the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain this action as against the said Federal Defendants, arguing that any such action against the defendants is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The same argument is urged as a grounds for dismissal of Westlands' Counterclaim and Cross-Claim.
Acknowledging the ever-present risk of over-simplification in discussing this complex litigation, the facts which give rise to this litigation, briefly stated for purpose of this decision, are as follows:
In 1963, the Water and Power Resources Service of the Department of Interior of the United States entered into a contract entitled as follows: "Contract Providing for Water Service," hereinafter referred to as "The 1963 Contract".
Although the Federal Defendants and the Federal Cross-Claim Defendants have not as yet answered, there appeared to be no dispute at the time of argument between the parties as to the due execution of this document.
At some point in time after the execution of this document, and the respective parties commenced the performance of their obligation and acceptance of benefits under The 1963 Contract, the United States government, acting through the office of the Department of Interior, disputed the validity of The 1963 Contract and raised legal questions as to the obligation of the United States to deliver the water under the water service contract. Simultaneously, the United States disputed the legal basis of a draft of an agreement providing for the construction and repayment of the distribution and drainage system concerning the same project which had been submitted to Congress for approval. It is asserted that the position of the government of the United States at this point was that unless substantial concessions were made in regard to salient features of The 1963 Contract by Westlands, no water deliveries would be made to Westlands, from the water sources available to the United States to service this contract. Judicial notice is taken that such a turn of events would have created economic catastrophe in the western regions of Kings, Fresno, Madera and Merced Counties served by Westlands.
The Plaintiffs in the instant action ultimately filed a class action on behalf of named plaintiffs and members of a class similarly situated who claimed priorities, both as to amount of water and price of water, as against other landowners within Westlands. They named as defendants in their amended pleadings the Westlands Water District itself, as well as other individuals and entities which plaintiffs contend represent classes of owners junior in priority with regard to entitlement to water from the District.
After removal from State court, Westlands petitioned and obtained an Order requiring the Federal Defendants to be joined as indispensable parties. Upon the entry of the Federal Defendants into the litigation lists, Westlands filed its Cross-Claim and Counterclaim against the Federal Defendants seeking a determination of the respective rights and duties of the parties under the aforementioned contract and Federal Reclamation Law. The Federal Defendants now seek removal from the litigation on the grounds previously mentioned.
The Court recognizes the fundamental principle of law that the sovereign cannot be haled into court without its express consent. However, as the ambit of governmental activities broadens and as the effect of that activity touches more and more of the daily activities of its citizens, the consent of the United States to be made a party defendant in Federal courts (and occasionally in State courts) has increased apace. It seems to the court that several such consent statutes opened the door to the Federal courthouse by which The Federal Defendants and The Federal Cross-Claim Defendants may be brought to the bar of this Court.
28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) provides as follows:
"(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States except that no such sum or value shall be required in any such action brought against the United States, or any agency thereof, or any officer or employee thereof in his official capacity."
It seems to the Court that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 78 S.Ct. 1174, 2 L.Ed.2d 1313 (1958), is dispositive of this matter. Although the litigation in that case arose in State court,1 the Court held that since the contracts in question, like the 1963 Contract here, were entered into pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902, the interpretation of such contracts must therefore be in accordance with federal law and not state law; hence, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction. Indeed, the contract pleaded by the plaintiff as the root-cause of this litigation, recites that: "This contract . . in pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and Acts amendatory thereto or supplementary thereto all collectively hereinafter referred to as the Federal Reclamation Law".
In the Ivanhoe Irrigation District v. McCracken, supra, case, commenting on the contracts there entered into by the irrigation districts in question with the United States pursuant to the Reclamation Act, the Supreme Court stated:
Clearly, the action of the government which brings these parties into court originated in an alleged ultra vires agency action. As stated in DeLao v. Califano, 560 F.2d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir. 1977):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation, No. CV-F-91-048 OWW.
...128(j) are barred by the doctrine of res judicata because each of these subclaims either was asserted or could have been asserted in the Barcellos litigation which resulted in the 1986 Stipulated Judgment. Paragraph 128(c) alleges that Westlands breached its duties under the 1963 Service Co......
-
State Engineer v. South Fork Band of Te-Moak Tribe
... ... STATE ENGINEER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, and Water Commissioners of the Sixth Judicial District ... California v. Steelcase, Inc., 792 F.Supp. 84, 86 (C.D.Cal.1992). The ... Badham v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 721 F.2d 1170, ... See Barcellos & Wolfsen Inc. v ... Page 1180 ... Westlands ... ...
-
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States
...district were entitled to summary judgment that they had an enforceable right under the 1963 Contract, their recordable contracts and the Barcellos Judgment10 to pay not the full price of water delivery as required by federal reclamation law but the eight dollar per acre-foot rate "for exce......
-
Orff v. U.S.
...similar,' but must be `identical.'" Central Delta Water Agency v. United States, 306 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). In Barcellos I, the district court rejected the government's sovereign immunity defense on two alternate grounds. The first ground was that the ultra vires e......