714 F.3d 866
5th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs own property in Orleans Parish, adjacent to the 17th Street Canal levee.
- After Hurricane Katrina, the Corps and Levee District planned land removal and new improvements to the levee area, with the Levee District granting the Corps a right-of-entry.
- Plaintiffs sued in Louisiana state court challenging the existence and constitutionality of the Levee District’s servitude and seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- State court rulings: partial summary judgment for plaintiffs; later reversal by the state appellate court recognizing a valid servitude; Louisiana Supreme Court denied further review.
- In 2011, plaintiffs filed a second state court action joining the Corps, seeking declaratory relief and damages; the state court allowed amending to name the Corps.
- Corps removed the case to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a), 1442(a)(1), 1442(b); district court denied some claims but held QTA jurisdiction over property rights vis-à-vis the Corps and certified for interlocutory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether QTA waives sovereign immunity here | landowners contend QTA covers their title dispute | Corps argues QTA does not apply to third-party title disputes | QTA does not apply to this action |
| Whether the action adjudicates a disputed real property title between plaintiff and United States | dispute involves property rights against the government’s asserted interest | dispute centers on third-party Levee District's servitude, not US title | Dispute is not between plaintiff and United States |
| Whether the underlying title dispute is between plaintiff and United States under QTA scope | QTA should cover the challenge to the servitude involving the US participation | QTA contemplates adversity with the United States, not a third party | Plaintiffs’ action falls outside the QTA scope |
| Whether controlling authorities allow a broader interpretation of QTA after Cooper and Patchak | Cooper and Patchak may support broader QTA application | Cooper and Patchak support a narrower, adversarial reading | Cooper and Patchak support limiting QTA to disputes between plaintiff and US |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (Supreme Court 1941) (sovereign immunity requires consent to sue)
- Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court 1983) (QTA provides exclusive means to challenge US title to real property)
- Federal Aviation Admin. v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (Supreme Court 2012) (QTA does not apply to all agency actions; APA waiver governs unless QTA applies)
- Cooper (Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper), 132 S. Ct. 1441 (Supreme Court 2012) (interpretation of waiver narrowly; must be plainly stated by text)
- Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States, 170 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 1999) (third-party claims to US title can cloud plaintiff's title)
- McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 1999) (title disputes involving government interests require adversity with US)
- Cadorette v. United States, 988 F.2d 215 (1st Cir. 1993) (title disputes and sovereign immunity considerations in land claims)