STATE OF CAL., ETC. v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. C 79-1865 RPA.,C 79-1865 RPA.
• Citation: 512 F. Supp. 36
• Parties: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

512 F. Supp. 36

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE LANDS COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America et al., Defendants.

No. C 79-1865 RPA.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

January 6, 1981.

As Amended February 6, 1981.

Bruce S. Flushman, Joseph C. Rusconi, Linus Masouredis, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

Rodney H. Hamblin, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

AGUILAR, District Judge.

This action is before the Court on plaintiff State of California's motion to strike the affirmative defenses of the statute of limitations, laches and estoppel asserted by the defendant United States of America in its answer to the State's complaint to quiet title to the land comprising Hamilton Air Force Base. The Court also has before it the State's motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate's ruling compelling production of certain documents.

Factual and Procedural Background

This lawsuit is one of a number of lawsuits seeking a judicial determination of the proper disposition of a choice parcel of land bordering the San Francisco Bay in Marin County, California. Beginning in 1931 the United States acquired, through various condemnation actions and by purchase and donation deed, portions of land which collectively make up the land on which the United States built a military airbase known as Hamilton Air Force Base (hereinafter referred to as the "Base"). The Base was used as an airbase until it was decommissioned in 1974. In 1976, portions of the Base were declared by Congress to be surplus property. Pursuant to its statutory authority to dispose of surplus property (see 40 U.S.C. § 484(a)), the General Services Administration has published a plan for disposition of the property. This plan is the subject of a number of the lawsuits relating to the property.

This action between the State and the United States, however, involves the sole question of title to the land sought to be disposed of by the United States. Thus, if this lawsuit were to be resolved in favor of the State, all lawsuits challenging the plan for disposition of the property prepared by the General Services Administration would necessarily become moot, as the General Services Administration would have no power to dispose of the land if the United States is determined to have no title to the land.

The State brought this quiet title action against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2409 as to those portions of the land comprising the Base that had been acquired by the United States by donation deed. The essence of the State's claims is that these lands are sovereign trust lands, and as such the State, in the absence of formal condemnation proceedings, holds the lands in trust for the people of California free from any federal claim of title. It should be noted that the State makes no claim of title to those lands acquired by the United States by condemnation.

In its answer to the State's complaint, the United States denies that the State has any title interests in the Base or that the State holds any of the land comprising the Base in trust for the public. Relevant to the present proceedings, the United States asserts that the State's action is barred by the Statute of Limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f)), laches and estoppel. (Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 of the United States' answer to the First Amended Complaint). In support of its contention that the State is barred by these three equitable defenses from claiming any title interest in the lands, the United States alleges that employees and attorneys for the State knew of the United States' claim of title in fee simple to the property for in excess of twenty years, but despite this knowledge, took no steps to protect the State's title interests.

The State now moves to strike the three affirmative defenses on the ground that these defenses are not available where a sovereign state is suing to quiet title to sovereign trust lands.^*

Propriety of Deciding the Motion to Strike

The United States contends that the motion to strike should be denied as premature, asserting that all facts surrounding the controversy involved in the lawsuit should be ascertained before determining whether sufficient facts exist to apply the three defenses to bar the action. The United States would thus have resolved the factual questions of (1) whether the land is sovereign trust land and (2) whether State employees knew of the claim of title by the United States but failed to protect the State's interest, before resolving the legal issue of whether the three equitable defenses can apply to a state asserting title to sovereign trust lands.

Motions to strike are often looked on with disfavor because of the tendency for such motions to be asserted for dilatory purposes. 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil § 1380 at 783 (1969). However, where the motion may have the effect of making the trial of the action less complicated, or have the effect of otherwise streamlining the ultimate resolution of the action, the motion to strike will be well taken. See, e. g., Narragansett Tribe v. So. R. I. Land Devel., 418 F.Supp. 798, 801-802 (D.R.I.1976).

By framing the question as whether it will be ultimately more time consuming to determine the applicability of the three defenses asserted by the United States before or after it is determined whether the land involved is sovereign trust land and whether State agents had knowledge of the United States' claim of title, it is clear that the latter would be more time consuming and burdensome to the Court. Thus, resolution of the State's motion to strike at this stage of the proceedings will have only beneficial effects. The briefs of the parties indicate that there are major disputed legal and factual issues that must be resolved before a determination can be made as to whether the land is sovereign trust land. Further, if the land is determined to be sovereign trust land, there are disputed legal and factual questions as to whether the State has retained its interest in the land. If the motion to strike is resolved at this time in favor of the United States, it is highly probable that the entire action will be disposed of by a motion for summary judgment by the United States on the grounds that the State is barred from asserting title to Base land because employees and attorneys of the State had knowledge of the claim of title by the United States. The Court would never be required to determine the sovereign trust character of the land or whether the State retained title to the land. If the motion is resolved in favor of the State, only then will the Court proceed with the issues of the sovereign trust character of the land and the State's interest in the land. It should be noted that if the land is determined not to be sovereign trust land, the issue of the applicability of the defenses would not again arise, because in such a case the State would have retained no interest in the land. Thus, under either result the proceedings are simplified by deciding the legal issue of the availability of the three defenses prior to resolving the more time consuming issues of the sovereign trust character of the land and the State's interest in the land. Moreover, it should be noted that the applicability of the three defenses to a state asserting title to sovereign trust lands is a legal question which does not depend for its resolution on a determination of whether facts exist to support an application of the defenses. Therefore, in conclusion, the Court considers it appropriate to address the merits of the State's motion to strike at this time.

Assumed Facts

On a motion to strike, the Court must treat as admitted all material factual allegations underlying the challenged defenses and all reasonable presumptions that can be drawn therefrom. Kohen v. H.S. Crocker Co., 260 F.2d 790, 792 (5th Cir. 1958); Narragansett Tribe, supra, 418 F.Supp. at 802. For purposes of this motion, the Court must assume that the State can prove its factual allegations at trial. Narrangansett Tribe, supra. Thus, to rule on the State's motion to strike, the Court must presume that the lands which are the subject of this lawsuit are sovereign trust lands and that the State retained an interest in these lands. It is quite apparent that these are major suppositions, but necessary ones to a ruling on the motion to strike.

The Sovereign Trust (or Public Trust) Lands Concept

Title to land which was covered by tidal waters (this land is called submerged tidelands) at the time the state was admitted to the Union is in the shoreline state. Thus California acquired title to all soils under the tidewaters within its limits when it was admitted to the Union. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301(a), 1311. This principle was established by court-made law (see, Weber v. Harbor Comm'rs., 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 57, 65-66, 21 L.Ed. 798 (1873)) until the Supreme Court determined title to submerged tidelands was in the United States in United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947). But in 1953, Congress overturned this decision by enacting the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1301 et seq., which placed title to submerged tidelands in the states from the date the state was admitted to the Union as an incidence of the state's sovereignty. Thus, there has been a return to prior legal doctrines. See State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363, 374, 97 S.Ct. 582, 584, 50 L.Ed.2d 550 (1977).

The land under tide waters has a special legal character. In Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387, 13 S.Ct. 110, 36 L.Ed. 1018 (1892), the Supreme Court explained the nature of a state's title to submerged tidelands. The Court stated that title to soils under tide water is:

"a title different in character from that which the State holds in lands intended for sale. It is different from the title which

...