300 F. Supp. 3d 1056
D. Ariz.2018Background
- Sunburst owns 53 unpatented lode claims and mill sites (locations from 1907–2016); Emerald located 47 overlapping lode claims (2012–2016). Both sides assert quiet-title and trespass claims over overlapping ground.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment to Sunburst and against Emerald on numerous named claims and mill sites (docket 112).
- Emerald filed three motions: (1) reconsideration/Rule 60(b)(2) seeking relief based on "new" evidence (docket 123); (2) partial summary judgment (docket 116) challenging Sunburst's Block Claims and seeking validation of non-overlapping portions of Emerald's claims; and (3) opposition to a motion to strike Emerald's reply statement of facts (Sunburst moved to strike docket 132; docket 133).
- Emerald submitted new evidence referencing a leaking pregnant leach solution (PLS) pond and a declaration by Sunburst's predecessor personnel; Emerald contends failure to remediate shows abandonment of certain Mineral Survey Claims.
- The court denied the motion to strike as moot (Local Rule violations noted but no need to consider the disputed filing), rejected Emerald's abandonment theory based on the PLS evidence, granted reconsideration only to adopt Ninth Circuit precedent on oversized lode claims, and held that oversized lode claims are void as to the excess width over statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sunburst) | Defendant's Argument (Emerald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike Emerald's reply statement of facts (docket 132) | Objections: Emerald's separate filing violates Local Rule 7.2(m) and Local Rule 56.1; moving party may not file a reply statement of facts | Emerald: Rule 56(c)(2) permits objections in reply; prior Local Rules did not forbid reply statements | Court: Denied as moot; found Emerald violated local rules and improperly filed new facts on reply but did not need to consider them |
| Reconsideration based on newly discovered PLS leak evidence (abandonment of Mineral Survey Claims) | Sunburst: BLM records and other evidence show claims were maintained; no clear-and-convincing proof of abandonment | Emerald: PLS pond leak and predecessor's declaration show failure to remediate -> abandonment | Court: Denied relief — evidence not "newly discovered," Emerald lacked diligence, and evidence would not show clear-and-convincing subjective intent to abandon |
| Legal effect of notice on oversized lode claims (Velasco v. Mallory reliance) | Sunburst: Velasco/ Ninth Circuit precedent does not change that an oversized lode claim's excess is invalid without notice requirement; notice not required for lode claims | Emerald: Velasco requires notice and opportunity to resize before invalidating an oversized locator’s claim; Jones/Velasco support notice rule | Court: Granted reconsideration to follow Ninth Circuit authority (Lakin) — for lode claims, excess beyond 600-foot statutory width is void regardless of notice; notice irrelevant |
| Emerald's partial summary judgment on validity of non-overlapping portions and invalidity of Block Claims | Sunburst: Overlap-only dispute; evidence lacking to show mill sites non-mineral in character or entire Block Claims invalid | Emerald: Seeks declaration that (1) Emerald's non-overlapping claim portions are valid and (2) Sunburst's Block Claims are invalid (entirely or for excess) | Court: Denied in part: non-overlapping validity not at issue; granted as to Block Claims only to the extent they exceed 600 feet in width; entirety of Block Claims not invalidated based on notice theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Velasco v. Mallory, 427 P.2d 540 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967) (Arizona decision relied upon by parties concerning oversized locator claims and notice)
- Jones v. Wild Goose Mining & Trading Co., 177 F. 95 (9th Cir. 1910) (placer-claim authority discussed in Velasco)
- Lakin v. Dolly, 54 F. 461 (9th Cir. 1893) (holding that patents or claims issued for more than statutory width are void as to the excess; controlling Ninth Circuit authority for lode-claim excess rule)
- Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478 (9th Cir. 1996) (reply-evidence/new-evidence principle: district court should not consider new evidence in reply without giving nonmovant opportunity to respond)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)