Cuprite Mine Partners v. John Anderson, 809 F.3d 548

Guy Anderson owned sixteen mining claims in Arizona's Copper Mountain Mining District; upon his 1975 death, the six children held undivided one-sixth interests in each claim.
Cuprite Mine Partners, LLC filed a partition action in district court seeking partition by sale or in kind; John H. Anderson opposed selling his shares.
John executed quitclaims transferring portions of his interests to his four children, leaving himself with four claims; the transfers were non-contiguous to avoid contiguous ownership.
Cuprite amended the complaint to add John’s children as defendants and sought partition by sale under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1218(B).
District court granted summary judgment for Cuprite, appointing a commissioner to conduct a sale, with a 60-day window for better offers; only Freeport submitted an offer.
Appellants argued improper joinder, misapplication of Arizona partition statutes, and that summary judgment foreclosed a trial; court affirmed the order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
joinder of all defendants proper	Cuprite argues permissive joinder aided efficiency.	Defendants contend misjoinder would be prejudicial.	District court properly allowed joinder.
partition type appropriate	Cuprite seeks partition by sale under § 12-1218(B).	Defendants favor partition in kind or not partitioned at all.	Partition by sale appropriate under statute.
sale to a single buyer vs. auction	Sale to Freeport reflects best interests and uniform division of proceeds.	Auctioning individual tracts could yield higher proceeds.	Sale to Freeport upheld as consistent with statute and interests.
summary judgment vs trial in partition action	Rule 56 permits summary judgment where no material facts to dispute; state law governs substance.	Partition by sale may require trial under Arizona law.	Summary judgment appropriate; federal rules govern procedure; outcome same.

Register v. Coleman, 633 P.2d 418 (Ariz. 1981) (survey of partition by sale on summary judgment)
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1996) (Erie: outcome-determinative test for substantive vs. procedural law)
Maroules v. Jumbo, Inc., 452 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2006) (federal summary judgment standards in diversity cases)
Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (use of heightened federal standard at summary judgment)
Arnold v. Cesare, 668 P.2d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) (partition by sale warranted where cooperation impossible)
Bledsoe v. Hood, 36 P.2d 564 (Ariz. 1934) (precludes applying in-kind provisions when sale is appropriate)
Manley v. Boone, 159 F.633 (9th Cir. 1908) (mining claims typically unsuitable for in-kind partition)