Waibel Ranches, LLC v. United States
| Decision Date | 14 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:15-cv-02071-HL |
| Parties | WAIBEL RANCHES, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company; and WAIBEL PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
WAIBEL RANCHES, LLC an Oregon Limited Liability Company; and WAIBEL PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Defendant.
No. 2:15-cv-02071-HL
United States District Court, D. Oregon, Pendleton Division
April 14, 2022
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
ANDREW HALLMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Waibel Ranches and Waibel Properties assert this quiet title and breach of contract action against Defendant, the United States of America (“United States”). This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court
heard oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss on March 31, 2022. ECF 143. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves two easements that private landowners granted to the federal government in the 1960s. Plaintiffs are Oregon limited liability companies that own and lease property in Crook County, Oregon, known as Waibel Ranch. Pls.' Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 1, ECF 140.
A. Teaters Road Easement
On August 31, 1964, Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, North Fork Livestock Company, granted the United States a perpetual access road easement on Teaters Road (“Teaters Road Easement”). Id. ¶ 3; see Ex. 2 at 4. The easement included the right for the public to use Teaters Road to access federal land administered by the United States Forest Service (“USFS”). Id. ¶ 6; Ex. 2 at 4. Specifically, the United States maintained the right to “locate, construct, relocate, maintain, control and repair a roadway over and across” portions of the Waibel Ranch for the “full use” of the United States, its licensees, and permittees, “including the right of access for the people of the United States ....” Declaration of Faith Simitz (“Simitz Decl.”) Ex. C at 4, ECF 111.
From 1964 through 2015, the general public used Teaters Road to access federal land without any restriction or landowner permission. Declaration of Cameron Teater (“Teater Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF 117. Plaintiffs acquired the property in 2013. Simitz Decl. ¶ 8.c. Plaintiffs allege that from the time that they owned and leased the property in 2013 through 2015, the general public committed constant property rights violations on Plaintiffs' property, including poaching, trespassing, off-road vehicle damage, antler hunting, campfires, and littering. SAC ¶ 8.
They also allege that Defendants have not adequately maintained the road. Id. ¶ 6. Before 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) had refused to abandon the public easement despite requests from Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 15; Declaration of Julie Waibel (“Julie Waibel Decl.”) ¶ 7, ECF 121; Declaration of Brad Waibel (“Brad Waibel Decl.”) ¶ 8, ECF 121; Pls.' Resp. Defs.' Mot. Dismiss (“Pls.' Resp. Mot. Dismiss”) Ex. 6, ECF 120.
According to Plaintiffs, the legal description of the easement contains a 350-foot gap in the middle of Teaters Road. SAC ¶ 4. In 1984, the BLM apparently became aware of the 350-foot gap in the easement description when it commissioned a resurvey of portions of the property. Id. ¶ 7. Neither Plaintiffs-nor their predecessors in interest-received the results of the 1984 survey. Id. In late 2014, Plaintiffs authorized a survey of the area where they believed that “the road was not in a proper location.” Brad Waibel Decl. ¶ 9. As a result of that survey, Plaintiffs discovered the gap in the easement. Id.; SAC ¶ 9.
In February 2015, Plaintiffs' counsel “wrote to the BLM concerning the continued misuse of the easement by the general public, as well as advising [the BLM] of the discovered gap in the legal description.” Brad Waibel Decl. ¶ 10; see Pls.' Resp. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 5 at 1-2. Approximately six weeks later, the assistant BLM District Manager informed Plaintiffs that the BLM had reviewed the easement issue and concluded that “the easement was void.” Brad Waibel Decl. ¶ 10. The assistant BLM District Manager also said that “the road is yours and you can close it off to the public.” Id.
On April 13, 2015, the BLM issued a press release announcing the closure of Teaters Road. Pls.' Resp. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 6. In the press release, the BLM indicated that although it did not believe that the closure of the road was in the best interest of the public, “[t]he landowner was able to proceed with the closure because [the easement] did not cover the entire length of
Teaters Road.” Id. The press release further noted that “local businesses and agencies will be able to retain administrative use for business purposes ....” Id. One week later, in separate statements reported to the media, the BLM noted that the gap in the easement had allowed Plaintiffs to “move forward with the closure on [their] own.” Declaration of Lisa M. Clark (“Clark Decl.”) Ex. B at 2, ECF 123-2. The BLM noted that they were continuing to review the issue and that they “would like to see the road remain open ....” Id.
In the summer of 2015, Plaintiffs installed gates and closed the road to the public. SAC ¶ 9. Pursuant to an agreement with the BLM, Plaintiffs constructed gates at the entry points of the property and placed signs at both gates stating that the road was closed to the general public. Id. After the gates were constructed, Plaintiffs continued to allow the BLM, USFS agency personnel, law enforcement, and adjacent property owners to access the road. Id. ¶ 10.
In September 2015, however, the BLM reversed course: The BLM stated that there was not a gap in the easement description and threated Plaintiffs with trespass if they continued to prevent the public from accessing Teaters Road. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs did not comply with the United States's demand to restore public access and instead initiated this action to quiet title.[1]
B. Big Summit Prairie Ranch Easement
The BLM administers two island parcels within Plaintiffs' property that are located in an area known as Big Summit Prairie Ranch. Id. ¶ 40. The two island parcels are accessible via a gate on the north side of Big Summit Prairie Ranch. Id. ¶¶ 39, 40.
In July 1966, Plaintiffs' predecessors in interest, the Suttons and Pennys, conveyed a perpetual access road easement to the United States in the Big Summit Prairie Ranch area of
their property (“Big Summit Prairie Easement”). Id. ¶ 37; see Ex. 6 at 10. The recorded easement provides the United States and its assigns with a perpetual easement and right-of-way, “including but not limited to the right and privilege to locate, construct, relocate, maintain and repair a roadway over and across” the Big Summit Prairie Ranch area. SAC Ex. 6 at 1. The easement was granted for the “full use as a roadway by the [United States] and its licensees,” without any explicit reference to any right of public access. Id. at 6; Simitz Decl., Ex. K at 6. Plaintiffs acquired the property underlying or abutting the Big Summit Prairie Easement in 2015. Simitz Decl. ¶ 15.
According to Plaintiffs, the Big Summit Prairie Easement does not provide for any public access. SAC ¶ 38. From the 1960s until 2021, the United States utilized the easement “for administrative purposes and fire access” only, with no public use. Brad Waibel Decl. ¶¶ 24-25. Access to the easement is through a gate on the north side of Big Summit Prairie Ranch, and Plaintiffs allege that both Defendants and Plaintiffs, along with Plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest, had locked the gate for over sixty years. SAC ¶¶ 3, 8.
In 2021, Plaintiffs were informed of the United States's position that the easement included public access and that Plaintiffs could not continue to lock the gates. Declaration of Bob Williams (“Williams Decl.”) ¶ 22. As a result, Plaintiffs included a quiet title claim on the Big Summit Prairie easement in this action. See First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ¶¶ 34-43, ECF 104.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2015, Plaintiffs filed a declaratory action in state court in Crook County, and Defendant removed the case to federal court on November 4, 2015. ECF 1. Plaintiffs' initial complaint sought declaratory relief and specific enforcement of an agreement concerning the United States's easement on Teaters Road. Compl. ¶¶ 11-19, ECF 1-2.
On November 24, 2015, the case was stayed pending ongoing settlement negotiations. November 24, 2015, Order, ECF 4. In May 2016, the parties entered into what Plaintiffs allege was a new agreement with the United States concerning Teaters Road. SAC ¶ 26. That agreement was described as a “Joint Motion for Further Extended Stay of Proceedings” and was filed in this Court. Joint Mot. Stay, ECF 30. The agreement concerned the construction of an alternative road to Teaters Road and the disposition of a 160-acre parcel that the United States owned within Waibel Ranch. SAC ¶ 26. The agreement also set forth a process for the United States's relinquishment of the Teaters Road easement and the sale of the land. Id. In late 2017, however, the BLM apparently undermined the goals and objectives of the 2016 agreement by failing to acknowledge the standards set for the road construction and that Plaintiffs were subject to a $100,000 cap on the costs to construct the road. Id. ¶ 28.
The stay of this matter was lifted on October 10, 2021, when the Court was advised that the parties' most recent mediation was not successful. September 17, 2021, Order, ECF 99. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which for the first time addressed both the Teaters Road Easement and Big Summit Prairie Easement. See FAC. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, March 30, 2022, Order, ECF 142, and Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). SAC, ECF 140.
Plaintiffs allege six claims for relief in their Second Amended Complaint: (1) a quiet title claim for the Teaters Road Easement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2409(a), id. ¶¶ 14-19;...
To continue reading
Request your trial