Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | 3:15–cv–08274 JWS |
| Citation | 300 F.Supp.3d 1056 |
| Parties | SUNBURST MINERALS, LLC, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. EMERALD COPPER CORP., Defendant/Counterclaimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Lisa Anne Smith, Paul Michael Tilley, DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy PC, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff/Counter Defendant.
Albert Howell Acken, Nicholas P. Edgson, Samuel Lee Lofland, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant/Counter Claimant.
[Re: Motions at Dockets 116, 123, & 133]
Before the court are three motions. First, at docket 123 defendant and counterclaimant Emerald Copper Corp. ("Emerald") moves for reconsideration of the court's order at docket 112 pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g) or, alternatively, relief from that order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2).1 At docket 126 the court ordered plaintiff and counterdefendant Sunburst Minerals, LLC ("Sunburst") to respond to the motion, which it does at docket 130. The court did not request a reply.
The second motion, at docket 116, is Emerald's motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. Emerald supports the motion with a separate statement of facts at docket 117. Sunburst opposes the motion at docket 128, supported by controverting statement of facts and separate statement of additional facts at docket 129. Emerald replies at docket 131, supported by a reply statement of facts and objections to Sunburst's separate statement of additional facts at docket 132.
The third motion, at docket 133, is Sunburst's motion to strike Emerald's filing at docket 132 pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(m). Emerald opposes the motion at docket 134; Sunburst replies at docket 135.
Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.
The parties in this case assert competing possessory interests in land in Mohave County, Arizona, in an area commonly known as "the Emerald Isle Mine." As described in detail in the court's order at docket 112, Sunburst owns 53 unpatented lode claims and mill sites that were located on various dates between 1907 and 2016. Emerald has located 47 lode claims in the same general location as Sunburst's claims: 37 in 2012,2 five more in 2014,3 and five more in 2016.4 Sunburst asserts quiet title and trespass actions against Emerald, alleging that Emerald's junior claims are invalid "to the extent that they may overstake" Sunburst's senior claims.5 Emerald maintains that any of Sunburst's claims that "may overlap or conflict with the Claims owned by Emerald are invalid, null and void"6 and on that basis asserts counterclaims for quiet title and trespass against Sunburst.
At docket 112 the court granted partial summary judgment in Sunburst's favor on both counts of its complaint and both counts of Emerald's counter-complaint with regard to the following claims and mill sites: Copper Hill Mill Site Nos. 1–8, 10–12; Hermes Mill Site No. 13; Copper Hill Mill No. 1 Mill Site Nos. 14–15; Copper Hill No. 2; Hermes; Hermes No. 2; Jimtown Copper No. 1; Valley Copper Nos. 1–3; and FDR.
Local Rule 7.2(m)(1) governs motions to strike. It provides in pertinent part that a motion to strike may be filed "if it seeks to strike any part of a filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, or court order."7 The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within the court's discretion.8
Sunburst moves to strike Emerald's filing at docket 132, which consists of Emerald's reply statement of facts and its objections to Sunburst's separate statement of additional facts. As the court has already stated in its order at docket 112, Local Rule 56.1 does not authorize the moving party to file a reply statement of facts.9 Undeterred, Emerald filed a reply statement of facts at docket 132 without obtaining leave of court. Emerald argues that its filing is permitted by Rule 56(c)(2), which authorizes objections to evidence that "cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence,"10 because a reply statement of facts is necessary to its Rule 56(c) objections. It also argues that the Local Rules did not forbid reply statements of fact until the most recent revision, which was not in effect before December 1, 2017.11
Addressing this latter argument first, the rule against introducing new facts on reply is not a new one in this district12 or in the Ninth Circuit.13 The rule exists to guard against unfairness and surprise. It would be unfair, and reversible error, for a district court to consider new evidence offered in reply without affording the non-moving party an opportunity to respond.14 Although Emerald is correct that Rule 56(c) allows the moving party to object in reply to the non-moving party's evidence, the rule does not authorize that party to rely on new evidence in so doing. If Emerald believed it was necessary to file new evidence in support of its Rule 56(c) objections, it was required to seek leave of court. That way, the court could have determined whether the new evidence should be considered and, if so, allowed Sunburst an opportunity to respond.
With regard to Emerald's objections, Local Rule 7.2(m)(2) states in pertinent part that any objection to evidence offered in opposition to a motion must be presented in the objecting party's reply memorandum, which may not exceed eleven pages,15 and not in a separate filing.16 Emerald's objections are set out in a separate filing, violating this rule. Emerald's reply memorandum is ten pages long and its objections span an additional eleven pages. Emerald effectively filed a reply memorandum that is double the length allowed by the Local Rules without obtaining leave of court to do so.17
The court notes these Local Rule violations because it expects the parties to comply fully with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure going forward. Sunburst's instant motion will be denied as moot, however, because as discussed below there is no need for the court to consider Emerald's new evidence or objections.
Emerald asks the court to reconsider its opinion at docket 112 for four reasons. It argues that: (1) it has discovered new facts showing a dispute of material fact as to whether Sunburst abandoned its "Mineral Survey Claims;"18 (2) the court erred in holding that a good faith oversized lode claim is invalid only if the locator "was notified of the excess, was given an opportunity to correct it, and subsequently failed to remedy the problem;"19 (3) it should be allowed to submit new evidence showing that it notified Sunburst's predecessor that the "Block Claims"20 are oversized and the predecessor failed to respond; and (4) the court should vacate its order granting Sunburst summary judgment with regard to its FDR claim because a portion of that claim must be invalid and the entire claim might be invalid.
Under LRCiv 7.2(g), motions for reconsideration are usually denied "absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Courts in this district grant such motions for various reasons, including that the moving party made a convincing showing that the court failed to consider material facts that were before the court at the time of the initial decision.21
A court may grant a party relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b)(2) on account of "newly discovered evidence."22 Under this rule relief is warranted if "(1) the moving party can show the evidence relied on in fact constitutes ‘newly discovered evidence’ within the meaning of Rule 60(b) ; (2) the moving party exercised due diligence to discover this evidence; and (3) the newly discovered evidence [is] of ‘such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.’ "23
In its motion for partial summary judgment, Sunburst argued that Emerald lacked evidence showing that its Mineral Survey Claims were invalid.24 Emerald responded by arguing that the Mineral Survey Claims had been abandoned in two ways. First, it argued that the BLM's records "provide no evidence that annual assessment work was performed"25 for the Mineral Survey Claims, which would be conclusive evidence that these claims have been abandoned.26 The court rejected this argument because the BLM's records show that the necessary assessment work was performed.27 Second, Emerald argued that the affidavits of Earnest Schaaf and Brian Dirk Hatter, in which they state that they could not find monuments placed on the Mineral Survey Claims in 2012 and 2015, raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether those claims were properly monumented in accord with A.R.S. § 27–203. That statute provides that failure to properly monument a claim "shall be an abandonment of the claim, and all right and claim of the locator shall be forfeited."28 The court rejected this argument, holding that "[n]o reasonable jury could find that [Schaaf's and Hatter's] observations, which occurred between 40 and 105 years after the fact, clearly and convincingly dispute the locators' attestations that the monuments were posted at the time of location."29
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
...LRCiv.7.2(m) "The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is within the court's discretion." Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp. , 300 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1059 (D. Ariz. 2018).i. Reply Exhibit B (Scuderi Testimony) Exhibit B to the Plaintiff's Reply is the deposition of one of......
-
Petty v. Circle K Stores
...(9th Cir. 1996) (alteration omitted). "The ruleexists to guard against unfairness and surprise." Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1060 (D. Ariz. 2018). However, where arguments in a reply are in response to arguments set forth in an opposition brief, the......
-
Blake v. NCMIC Ins. Co.
... ... [ 63 ] Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , ... 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986) ... 2007) ... [ 87 ] Sunburst Mins., LLC v. Emerald ... Copper Corp. , 300 ... ...
-
Wright v. Old Gringo Inc.
...but did not.7 Defendants have therefore waived the arguments and may not raise them now. See Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1065 (D. Ariz. 2018) (concluding that defendant's motion for reconsideration "argument does not seek reconsideration, it is a ne......