Free MOTION to Relate Case - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-02814-JF

Document 4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332) United States Attorney JOANN M. SWANSON (SBN 88143) Chief, Civil Division CHARLES M. O'CONNOR (SBN 56320) Assistant United States Attorney 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Ninth Floor P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7180 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 25 Intervenor. 26 27 28
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 07-3176 JF & C08-2814 BZ

MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT,

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a political subdivision of the State of California; and Does 1 to 20, inclusive,

MONTARA WATER AND SANITARY DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, a political subdivision of the State of California; and Does 1 to 20,inclusive Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C 07-3176 JF

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Civil Local Rules 3-12(b), 7-11 Hearing: None, unless ordered by Court

No. C 08-2814 BZ

Case 5:08-cv-02814-JF

Document 4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTRODUCTION In the interests of judicial economy, the United States of America (hereafter "United States") brings this motion to relate the pending action (Civil No. C 08-2814), to a previous action (Civil No. C 07-3176) which was remanded without prejudice to the Santa Clara Superior Court on October 9, 2007. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Procedural History of the First Action (Civil No. C 07-3176 JF) On June 18, defendant County of San Mateo removed an eminent domain action (case number CIV 463068) to the United States District Court for the reason that the action implicated an interest of the United States in certain portions of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Airport, land in which the United States had a reversionary interest pursuant to a September 26, 1947 Quitclaim Deed. The action was docketed as Case No. C 07-3176 JF. [Docket #1]. On June 22, 2007, defendant County of San Mateo filed a motion for joinder of a necessary party (United States of America) as defendant for the reason that the United States was necessary to the action pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Docket #5]. On July 10, 2007, plaintiff Montara Water and Sanitary District filed a motion to remand the action to the Santa Clara Superior Court, arguing that the removal was improper because the action did not involve any substantive rights created by federal law, involved predominately state law issues, and would be tried independent of federal law. [Docket #9]. On October 9, 2007, the Honorable Jeremy Fogel filed an order granting plaintiff Montara's motion to remand and denying without prejudice the defendant County's motion for joinder. The Court found that the removal was improper because the United States had not sought to intervene for the purpose of claiming an interest in the outcome of the case and therefore there was not a present dispute regarding title to the property. The Court found that without removal jurisdiction it lacked the jurisdiction to consider the County's joinder motion. [Docket #22]. II. History of the Action in the Superior Court (Case No: 1-07-CV-088793) On December 13, 2007, the plaintiff obtained an order of possession covering certain parcels within the subject property from the Santa Clara Superior Court.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 07-3176 JF & C08-2814 BZ

-2-

Case 5:08-cv-02814-JF

Document 4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On December 21, 2007, the United States served a Notice of Intent to Revert Property on the defendant County of San Mateo. On March 21, 2008, the United States exercised its reversionary fee simple interest in the subject property and filed a Notice of Reverter with the Recorder's Office, County of San Mateo. On April 16, 2008, the United States moved to intervene in the Superior Court action on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration on the grounds that it was the current fee owner in the subject real property and therefore had a paramount interest in the property. On June 5, 2008, the Superior Court granted the United States' motion to intervene. [Copy attached as Exhibit B to Docket #1 in Case No: C 08-2814 BZ, referenced in Part III., below.] III. Procedural History of the Pending Action (Civil No. C 08-2814 BZ)) On June 5, 2008, the intervenor United States filed a notice of removal of Case No: 1-07088793. The action was docketed in this Court as Case No: C 08-2814 BZ. [Docket #1]. ARGUMENT The instant action, Civil No. C 08-2814 BZ, should be related to the prior action, as it meets the definition for a related case under Civil L.R. 3-12(a). First, except for the addition of the United States as a party to the case, the action concerns substantially the same parties, property, and transaction as the prior action. In fact, the instant action is best viewed as a continuation to the prior action with the United States as an additional party. The prior action was remanded because the Court found that the removal was improper because the United States had not sought to intervene for the purpose of claiming an interest in the outcome of the case. The United States subsequently exercised its reverter, sought to intervene in the Superior Court, and did successfully intervene in that Court on the basis that it possessed a paramount interest in the property as the current fee owner. Montara Water and Sanitary District remains the plaintiff, and San Mateo County remains a defendant. The subject property remains the same, and the eminent domain action remains the disputed transaction. Second, it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense if the cases are not related, given that the instant case is effectually a continuation of the prior case.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 07-3176 JF & C08-2814 BZ

-3-

Case 5:08-cv-02814-JF

Document 4

Filed 06/12/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Therefore, to promote judicial economy, as well as the economy of the parties, the Court should grant this motion and relate these two cases. Consistent with Rule 3-12(b), this motion will be filed in the earliest-filed case removed to this Court by defendant County, with a copy provided to the Court in the later action. Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney /s/ Dated: June 12, 2007 CHARLES M. O'CONNOR Assistant United States Attorney

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 07-3176 JF & C08-2814 BZ

-4-