Larry Wilkins v. United States
13 F.4th 791
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Larry Wilkins and Jane Stanton own properties along Robbins Gulch Road, which crosses private land and for which predecessors granted the United States an easement in 1962.
- In August 2018 they sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) to declare the easement does not permit public use and to require the government to prevent/mitigate public use.
- The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the QTA’s 12‑year statute of limitations is jurisdictional and had run; the district court granted dismissal and denied a Rule 59(e) motion.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, considering prior Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent about whether the QTA limitations period is jurisdictional and whether the accrual question was intertwined with the merits.
- The court affirmed: it held the QTA limitations period is jurisdictional, the jurisdictional inquiry was not so intertwined with the merits to preclude dismissal, and the plaintiffs’ claims had accrued more than 12 years before suit (addressed in an accompanying memorandum disposition), rendering the claims time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the QTA’s 12‑year statute of limitations is jurisdictional | Wong and subsequent Supreme Court reasoning require treating time bars as non‑jurisdictional; earlier Ninth Circuit precedent should be abrogated under Miller v. Gammie | Block and controlling Ninth Circuit decisions hold the QTA time bar deprives courts of jurisdiction; Wong does not overrule Block | QTA statute of limitations is jurisdictional; prior Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent control |
| Whether the statute‑of‑limitations/jurisdiction question is so intertwined with the merits that dismissal is improper | The same statutory provision and evidence bear on both jurisdiction and the substantive claim, so jurisdiction depends on the merits | The critical question for limitations is when a reasonable person had notice of the federal claim—a separate inquiry that does not require resolving the merits | Not so intertwined; jurisdictional dismissal was proper |
| Whether all claims accrued at the same time | Plaintiffs contended accrual timing may differ for various claims | Government argued accrual occurred when public use was apparent, more than 12 years before suit | Court rejected plaintiffs’ position; concluded (in separate memorandum) claims accrued >12 years before suit |
| Whether the claims were timely (including tolling) | Plaintiffs argued claims were timely or subject to tolling | Government argued time bar applied and QTA limitations is jurisdictional (precluding equitable tolling) | Claims were untimely and barred; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983) (held QTA time bar deprives courts of jurisdiction to reach merits)
- United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998) (addressed QTA limitations and equitable tolling)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (framework on treating statutes of limitations as non‑jurisdictional absent clear congressional statement)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (principles on equitable tolling and presumption in suits against the government)
- Kingman Reef Atoll Invs., L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008) (Ninth Circuit treating QTA limitations as jurisdictional and analyzing accrual/notice)
- Fidelity Exploration & Production Co. v. United States, 506 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2007) (reaffirmed Block as controlling on QTA jurisdictional bar)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (Tucker Act limitations treated as jurisdictional; Supreme Court declined to overrule on stare decisis grounds)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standard for when panel must follow intervening higher‑court precedent)