Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation v. Clarence Alexander, 21-35048

Clarence and Demetrie Alexander appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment awarding Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation (GZ) immediate, exclusive possession of three parcels adjacent to Tract 19 of Plat 2014‑78 near Fort Yukon, Alaska.
The Alexanders asserted claims under § 14(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and a state-law adverse possession claim.
Central factual/legal disputes included whether GZ was required to post claim boundaries under 43 C.F.R. § 2650.5‑4(c)(1), and whether the Alexanders’ § 14(c) claim was time‑barred by the one‑year limitations period in 43 U.S.C. § 1632(b).
The district court held GZ entitled to summary judgment: (1) the posting regulation did not require pre‑submission posting of § 14(c) boundaries; (2) the Alexanders’ § 14(c) claim was barred by the one‑year statute of limitations (and, even if tolled, actual notice in 2011 defeated timeliness); and (3) the adverse possession claim failed as a matter of law because Clarence’s § 14(c) filing recognized GZ’s superior title (defeating hostility).
The court also rejected the Alexanders’ plat‑definition argument as abandoned for lack of developed briefing and declined to reach it on the merits; because the Alexanders introduced the plat in district court, they could not challenge its admission on appeal.
The district court awarded fees to GZ as the prevailing party; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether GZ had to post § 14(c) claim boundaries before submitting a boundary map under 43 C.F.R. § 2650.5‑4(c)(1)	Alexanders: posting was required to support a § 14(c) claim	GZ: posting of boundaries before map submission was not required	Posting was not required; summary judgment for GZ on § 14(c) claim
Whether Alexanders’ § 14(c) claim was barred by the one‑year statute of limitations (43 U.S.C. § 1632(b))	Alexanders: limitations tolled because 2008 notice was inadequate, so claim timely	GZ: limitations expired; Alexanders had actual notice by 2011 meeting with cadastral officials	Claim barred by § 1632(b); even if tolling occurred, actual notice in 2011 made claim untimely
Whether Alexanders established title by adverse possession	Alexanders: asserted they acquired title by adverse possession	GZ: Clarence’s § 14(c) filing recognized GZ’s superior title and negated hostility element	Adverse possession fails as a matter of law (hostility prong); no triable factual issue, so no jury required
Whether Plat 2014‑78 is a subdivision plat / whether admission of the plat was erroneous	Alexanders: argued plat does not meet Alaska subdivision definition	GZ: issue was inadequately briefed; Alexanders introduced the plat at trial so cannot contest its admission on appeal	Issue deemed abandoned for lack of briefing; evidence admissible because Alexanders introduced it; court did not reach substantive plat‑definition question

Momox-Caselis v. Donohue, 987 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Clare v. Clare, 982 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2020) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Askins v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine does not bar a court from reassessing earlier rulings)
Sengupta v. Morrison–Knudsen Co., 804 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986) (jury required only where bona fide factual disputes exist)
Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 P.2d 304 (Alaska 1990) (recognition of another’s superior title defeats adverse possession hostility)
Tenala, Ltd. v. Fowler, 921 P.2d 1114 (Alaska 1996) (same principle on hostility for adverse possession)
Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000) (a party that introduces evidence cannot later complain about its admission)
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues inadequately briefed are deemed abandoned)