Franz v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation District
| Decision Date | 02 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20542.,20542. |
| Citation | 383 F.2d 391 |
| Parties | Henry Julius FRANZ, Appellant, v. EAST COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a municipal corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David Williams, Critchlow, Williams & Ryals, Richland, Wash., C. E. Hormel, Warden, Wash., for appellant.
Miller, Jansen & Sackmann, Ritzville, Wash., Leonard F. Jansen, Spokane, Wash., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, CECIL* and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Franz owns land located within the boundaries of the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District. East Columbia, organized under the laws of the State of Washington, contracted in 1945 with the United States Department of the Interior (Bureau of Reclamation) for the construction of certain irrigation and drainage facilities as part of the then developing Columbia Basin Project. This contract called for the repayment of a portion of the construction costs by East Columbia.
On December 18, 1962, East Columbia submitted to the electors of the irrigation district for approval an amendatory repayment contract with the United States which called for the capitalization of certain drainage costs which were to be paid annually as operation and maintenance charges under the 1945 contract. The net result of the change was to increase the maximum amount payable to the United States for construction purposes from $37,800,000 to $71,752,846. The election resulted in approval of the new contract as required by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 87.03.200. Subsequently additional minor changes were approved in a second election held on April 16, 1963.
On June 5, 1963, East Columbia, as required by RCW 87.03.780, commenced proceedings in Adams County Superior Court for approval of the amendatory repayment contract. Notice was given to all interested parties and hearings were held on June 27, 1963, and October 28, 1963. Upon motion of appellee the court entered an order of default against all persons interested in the proceedings with the exception of the one person who appeared. The trial court approved the provision of the amendatory repayment contract on November 21, 1963. This decision was affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court on August 27, 1964. In the Matter of the Petition of the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, 64 Wash.2d 887, 395 P.2d 46.
On January 28, 1964, appellant filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Northern Division. He alleges that his federally protected rights (to withdraw land from an irrigation district before an election on changes in the repayment contract) under the Columbia Basin Project Act 1937, ch. 269, § 2(e) (ii), 50 Stat. 210, as amended, 57 Stat. 14 (16 U.S.C. § 835a (e)) (repealed October 1, 1962, 76 Stat. 678), were abridged by the State of Washington and that as a result of this abridgment he was deprived of property without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant also calls our attention to certain provisions of the laws of Washington and to article 40a of the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Caesars Palace Securities Litigation
...of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such an issue may properly be raised by a motion to dismiss. Franz v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, 383 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1967); 3A J. Moore, Federal Practice ? 19.05 2, at 2211 (2d ed. The motion to dismiss is supported by the argum......
-
De Wit v. Firstar Corp.
...12(b)(7) Fed. R.Civ.P. (`failure to join a party under Rule 19') is subject to de novo review," citing Franz v. East Columbian Basin Irrigation District, 383 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1967)). Although the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has not specifically considered standards for dismissal under ......
-
Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association v. MISS. PROPANE GAS …
...that divestiture could subject TVEPA to double litigation and inconsistent obligations. TVEPA relies on Franz v. East Columbia Basin Irrigation Dist., 383 F.2d 391 (9th Cir.1967) and City of Anadarko v. Caddo Elec. Co-op., 258 F.Supp. 441 (W.D.Okla. 1966). In Franz, the plaintiff owned land......
-
Bogan v. New London Housing Authority
...this statute. "Where, as here, an indispensable party is not before the court, dismissal must follow." Franz v. E. Columbia Basin Irr. Dist. 383 F.2d 391, 392 (9th Cir. 1967). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7), 19. This portion of plaintiffs' complaint is accordingly dismissed, without State Action Ass......