United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist., 1247-SD.

Citation110 F. Supp. 767
Decision Date24 February 1953
Docket NumberNo. 1247-SD.,1247-SD.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. et al.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Raymond deS. Shryock, Chula Vista, Cal., Commander, U. S. Navy, Attorney for U. S. Navy Dept. and David W. Agnew, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Attorney for U. S. Navy Dept., for plaintiff.

Wm. B. Dennis, Fallbrook, Cal., for defendant Santa Margarita Mut. Water Co.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of State of California, by George G. Grover, Deputy Atty. Gen. of State of California, for State of California.

YANKWICH, Chief Judge.

The Court signs and files its Findings of Fact and Judgment in the above-entitled case on the trial on the merits of the case as to Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company, defendant, and the State of California as defendant in intervention.

The objections of the Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company, defendant, and the People of the State of California, defendant in intervention, to the Findings of Fact and the Judgment prepared under the direction of the Court and proposed by the plaintiff, and the proposed amendments to such Findings of Fact and Judgment have been considered by the Court and are overruled and denied. The Court, however, has eliminated the text of the Opinion and Order dated December 9, 1952, D.C., 109 F. Supp. 28, 42, as superfluous and not properly part of the Findings.

The Court is of the view that the Findings and Judgment, in the final form proposed, set forth correctly the facts and legal principles as found by the Court in the Opinion and Order just referred to.

The Order which accompanied the Opinion was intended to set forth succinctly the manner in which the Court's conclusions on some of the principal issues are to be transmuted into Findings. This, in conformity with a practice adopted by this Court in certain types of cases. See United States v. Richfield, 1952, D.C.Cal., 99 F. Supp. 280, 284, 297. Neither the Opinion nor the Order by its terms was to take the place of formal Findings. Indeed, the Order stated that

"Judgment and Declaration quieting Title * * * will be entered. Such Judgment and Declaration to contain the following specific Findings."

Fifteen specific findings to be included in the formal Findings were then set forth. This clearly contemplated future action. So did also the later action of the Court in granting the defendants time to file objections to the findings to be proposed.

The original Findings were lodged on December 29, 1952. Originally, the Court had informed counsel that instead of the usual five days allowed under Local Rule 7, they would have fifteen days from that date in which to file objections and amendments. That time was extended to nearly six weeks, the defendants being given until February 10, 1953, in which to file objections to the new matters contained in the amended draft.

These actions, memorials of which are on the Minutes of the Court, show clearly that at no time was it the intention of the Court to consider the Opinion and the Order for Findings as anything but an intermediate step. Nevertheless, counsel for the defendants filed on February 7, 1953, a Notice of Appeal from the Order.

I have disregarded the notice as premature. For, as of that day, there is no Order or Judgment from which an appeal will lie. It was not a judgment, nor entered as such. Fed.Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 54(a), 58, and 79(a), 28 U.S.C.A. See, Wright v. Gibson, 1942, 9 Cir., 128 F.2d 865; Uhl v. Dalton, 1945, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 502; Weldon v. United States, 9 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 874. The Findings and Judgment which I have ordered entered as of this date are the Findings and Judgment of the Court in the case after partial trial. Subject to the exception noted in Paragraph 17 of the Judgment, Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they constitute a final order from which an appeal will lie. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 2107.

These statements are made in order that counsel for the two defendants will understand the Court's position, and will not jeopardize their rights of appeal by failing to file a new Notice of Appeal from the Judgment this day entered. Otherwise, they may find themselves appealing from an Order which is not final, and, in my view, a premature appeal cannot be given validity by any stipulation of parties, or by an extension of time to docket the appeal, as counsel for the State suggested when these facts were called to his attention.

As to the objections and the proposed amendments, I desire to state that I have considered them all. Some of them involve a mere change of verbiage which could very well be granted, except that, in the interest of economy of time, such action would not now be advisable. Over two and one-half months have elapsed since the Court's decision was announced. Others challenge the conclusion of the Court as to certain matters such as the prescriptive rights acquired by the plaintiff and its predecessors to water used outside the watershed.

I realize the earnestness of counsel in the case. But the conclusions reached were the result of long consideration. Some of the legal principles ultimately declared were anticipated in the Opinion on Pre-trial Questions which, at the request of counsel for these defendants and of the Fallbrook Public Utility District, the Court agreed to consider and determine in advance of trial.

Further argument or discussion will not change the position taken. I am also of the view that some of the suggested negative findings and conclusions have no place in the Findings and are anticipatory of claims that might be asserted in the future.

Hence the Order just made rejecting the amendments and approving and signing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law proposed by the Government and lodged with the Clerk on February 10, 1953, with the elimination of the text of the Opinion and Order dated December 9, 1952.

It is not customary to make any comment in ruling on Findings, although I have done it in at least one other instance. See Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, 1945, D.C.Cal., 5 F.R.D. 14. But the nature of the case, the fact that some of the actions of this Court, even the determination of questions of law in advance of trial at the request of counsel for the three chief defendants in the case, have been the subject of misinterpretation, and the Court's desire to avoid any disadvantage accruing to the two defendants from their filing of the premature Notice of Appeal, which they have declined to allow me to strike from the files, although such action was suggested to them by letter written by the Clerk of this Court, — I am making this statement so that the record will show conclusively that no appealable order was entered in this case prior to this date.

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and JUDGMENT

This court having jurisdiction over the above proceedings and the parties thereto, and the cause having come on to be tried as to the defendant Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company, and the defendant in intervention the State of California, having been argued and submitted, and the Court having filed its opinion and its order, both dated December 9, 1952, now makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Title to Lands Involved in Controversy
A. Title to Parcels
1. The United States of America, in condemnation proceedings, acquired fee

simple title to a tract of land of 9,147.55 acres in San Diego County, California, by a declaration of taking, and decree entered thereon, filed January 21, 1942, in this Court.1

2. This tract of land is that portion of the military reservation sometimes referred to as the "U. S. Naval Ammunition Depot" and "Fallbrook Naval Reservation".2

3. The United States of America, in condemnation proceedings, acquired fee simple title to a tract of land of 122,202.72 acres in San Diego County, California, by a declaration of taking, and decree entered thereon, filed December 31, 1942, in this Court.3

4. This tract, which is the main portion of the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Training Base, includes the site of the U. S. Naval Hospital, Oceanside, California.4

5. The United States of America, in condemnation proceedings, acquired fee simple title to a tract of land of 1,676.58 acres in San Diego County, California, by a declaration of taking, and decree entered thereon, filed December 23, 1943.5

6. The United States of America, by intragovernmental transfer of land in the public domain, included in the Camp Pendleton military reservation a tract of land of 1,574.61 acres in San Diego County, California, by Public Land Order No. 293 dated August 8, 1945.6

7. The United States of America likewise acquired fee simple title to a tract of land of 112.11 acres in Orange County, California, contiguous to the above lands acquired by the United States of America in San Diego County, California, by deed dated February 8, 1949.7

B. Rights of Way

8. The tracts of land described in Findings 1 and 3 hereof were acquired subject to easements for railroad rights of way in favor of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company.8

C. Location of Camp Pendleton

9. The Santa Margarita river traverses the above property of the United States of America for a distance of some 21 miles from the point at which it enters the easterly boundary of that property to the Pacific Ocean. The five parcels described above are component parts of the single military reservation of the United States of America generally known and referred to as "Camp Joseph H. Pendleton" or "Camp Pendleton", Oceanside, California, which reservation includes those military activities known as the U. S. Naval Ammunition Depot and the U. S. Naval Hospital.9

10. Camp Pendleton military reservation comprises some 135,000 acres located principally in San Diego County, California, bordering on the Pacific Ocean for approximately 17 miles between the cities of Oceanside and San...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 8, 1958
    ...28 (Decision after trial is to defendants, Santa Margarita Mutual Water Co. & State of California); United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, D.C.1953, 110 F.Supp. 767 (Findings, conclusions and judgment pursuant to decision in 109 F.Supp. Fallbrook Public Utility District v. Unit......
  • Rank v. (Krug) United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • July 11, 1956
    ...Dist. v. Stratford Irr. Dist., 1937, 10 Cal.2d 376, 74 P.2d 248 Fallbrook cases, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 298; 108 F.Supp. 72; 109 F.Supp. 28; 110 F.Supp. 767 Fall River Valley Irr. Dist. v. Mt. Shasta Power Corp., 1927, 202 Cal. 56, 259 P. 444 Faulkner v. Rondoni, 1894, 104 Cal. 140, 37 P. 883 Fe......
  • Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 06-CV-01414-H (WMC).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 10, 2007
    ...a federal enclave, acquired by the United States in 1941 when it established Camp Pendleton.") (citing United States v. Fallbrook Pub. Util. Dist., 110 F.Supp. 767, 771 (S.D.Cal.1953)); Snow v. Bechtel Const. Inc., 647 F.Supp. 1514, 1515-16 (C.D.Cal. 1986) (taking judicial notice of the fac......
  • U.S. v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 28, 1983
    ...land in San Diego County, California, for the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Training Base. See United States v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, 110 F.Supp. 767, 771 (S.D.Cal.1953). California ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the United States and the Secretary of the Navy accepted the cessi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT