United States v. Dibble
| Decision Date | 06 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 23091.,23091. |
| Citation | 429 F.2d 598 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M. E. DIBBLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leo M. Cook (argued), A. B. Broaddus, Ukiah, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Jacques B. Gilin (argued) Asst. Atty. Gen., Shiro Kashiwa, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Spurr, Brunner & Nelson, Ukiah, Cal., James L. Browning, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES, HUFSTEDLER, and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
The United States brought this ejectment action against appellant Dibble to recover approximately 11 acres of land in the Lake Mendocino reservation area in California. Dibble answered, denying the charging averments of the complaint and asserting estoppel as an affirmative defense. After some preliminary procedural skirmishes, the Government moved for summary judgment. The motion was granted, and Dibble appeals from the ensuing judgment.
We reverse because the Government did not offer evidence sufficient to have sustained a finding that the County, under whose master "lease" Dibble held, was in breach of contract.
There is no dispute about the following facts: The United States owns the fee title to the land in issue. By written contract, the United States "licensed" the use of the land as part of a larger parcel to Mendocino County, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 460d. The County entered a subconcession license with one Mendoyoma, Inc., and Mendoyoma sublet the 11 acres to Dibble by written contract approved by the Army.
The Government claimed it was entitled to eject Dibble because it had terminated the County's master license for breach of conditions stated in its licensing agreement. Issue was joined on the question whether or not the County had breached its contract, giving the Government a right to terminate the master license.1 Dibble claimed that the Government was estopped from ejecting him from the 11-acre parcel by reason of some of the acts of its agents. The Government argued that estoppel would not lie against it as a matter of law.
To prove that the County was in breach, the Government offered a series of exhibits attached to an affidavit of Harlan B. Watkins who identified himself as an Assistant to the District Engineer in the Army Corps of Engineers. One of those exhibits was a copy of a part of the master license. We say "a part" because the agreement refers to and incorporates a "Master Plan for Public Recreation Development * * * attached hereto * * * as Exhibit `A'," and no such exhibit is attached. Next there is a copy of a letter addressed to the County, dated 4 December 1964, stating that the terms of the master license have been violated because the County has not provided the facilities and services specified "in the development plan for the area," and that the Government will terminate the license within thirty days unless there has been compliance. Next there is a copy of a letter dated 10 February 1965, addressed to the County, extending to 4 June 1965 the time within which the County can correct the violations referenced in the December letter. Finally, there is a copy of a letter dated 20 January 1966, again addressed to the County, stating that past inspections "revealed numerous deficiencies and violations by your concessionaires in the operation of their facilities at Russian River Reservoir," that "previous deficiencies had not been corrected," that "there were continued violations of State and Federal laws and regulations," and therefore there would be a recommendation to the Secretary of the Army to terminate the license. The "numerous deficiencies," "previous deficiencies," and "continued violations" were not further spelled out, nor can they be related to that part of the contract found in the record. Lastly, there is a copy of a form of revocation notice reciting that the master license has been revoked at the direction of the Assistant Secretary of the Army. No reasons are specified.
Nothing in the documents filed purports to impose any contractual duty on the County to develop any specific facilities or to provide any specific services. A recitation in a notice of intention to terminate a license that the County is in violation of the terms of a license is not itself proof that any such terms existed. We can guess that when the letter of 4 December mentions "the development plan," the writer may have had in mind the "Master Plan" that was incorporated into the license with the County, and we can also guess that if the "Master Plan" had been offered, it would have contained some covenants or conditions that could be construed to impose the duties the Government claims were not fulfilled. But speculation of that kind is no substitute for proof adequate to sustain a finding that such contractual obligations existed and that the County breached them in material particulars. There is no evidence in the record from which a conclusion could follow that the County was in violation of some requirements of State law justifying termination.
A summary judgment is neither a method of avoiding the necessity for proving one's case nor a clever procedural gambit whereby a claimant can shift to his adversary his burden of proof on one or more issues. (Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1969) 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed. 142.) To obtain a judgment in favor of a claimant pursuant to his complaint, counterclaim, or cross-claim, the moving party must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his claim for relief, except those elements admitted by his adversary in his pleadings, or by stipulation, or otherwise during the course of pretrial. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment who has failed to produce such evidence on one or more essential elements of his cause of action is no more "entitled to a judgment" (Rule 56(c) Fed.R.Civ.Proc.) than is a plaintiff who has fully tried his case and who has neglected to offer evidence sufficient to support a finding on a material issue upon which he bears the burden of proof. (See 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1966) hereinafter cited as Moore ¶ 56.222, at 2825.) In either situation there is a failure of proof.
Thus far we have ignored the other deficiencies in the Government's moving papers. Those papers did not comply with Rule 56(e), and summary judgment should not have been predicated on them. (Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1950) 339 U.S. 827, 831, 70 S.Ct. 894, 94 L.Ed. 1312; Union Ins. Soc'y of Canton, Ltd. v. William Gluckin & Co. (2d Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 946, 952-953; F. S. Bowen Elec. Co. v. J. D. Hedin Const. Co. (1963) 114 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 316 F.2d 362; Washington v. Maricopa County (9th Cir. 1944) 143 F.2d 871, cert. denied (1946) 327 U.S. 799, 66 S.Ct. 900, 90 L.Ed. 1024.)2 Rule 56(e) requires that affidavits ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp.
...affidavits or declarations of persons with personal knowledge through whom they could be introduced at trial. See United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 602 (9th Cir.1970) (writings are not admissible under motion for summary judgment without proper foundation); California Pacific Bank v. S......
-
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc.
...summary judgment. Canada, 831 F.2d at 925; Hamilton v. Keystone Tankship Corp., 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601-602 (9th Cir.1970). As previously noted, Feiner & Co. denied that Hal Roach Studios had an ownership interest in the film rights at is......
-
Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd.
...fact which under applicable principles of substantive law would be required to support a judgment in its favor. United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 1970). While the basic structure for claims and defenses is quite clearly defined by the contract documents, the questions of ......
-
Quadra v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO
...Corporation, 372 F.2d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 820, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed. 2d 71 (1967). Cf. United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 1970) Plaintiffs have offered no evidence which would tend to negate the possibility that there exists a sufficient factua......