Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moitozo v. United States

February 3, 2009

MANUEL G. MOITOZO AND IRIS N. MOITOZO, AS TRUSTEES OF THE MOITOZO 1992 REVOCABLE TRUST, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16) Discovery Deadlines: Initial Disclosures March 29, 2009 Non Expert September 11, 2009 Expert Disclosures October 9, 2009 Supp. Expert Discl October 30, 2009 Expert Discovery January 15, 2010 Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: January 22, 2010 Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: February 2, 2010 Pre-Trial Conference: April 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor Trial: June 2, 2010 at 8:30 a.m.

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

January 29, 2009.

Courtroom 2 (AWI), 8th Floor 3-5 Days Court Trial

III. The Pleadings

A. Summary of the Pleadings

This arises from a property dispute regarding a Corporation Grant Deed recorded in Merced County, California, on September 28, 1989. Romero Ranch Company, a corporation, conveyed certain real property located in Merced County to Defendant for use as a cemetery by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The Subject Property was part of a large cattle ranch owned by the Romero Ranch Company, and the cattle ranch was known as Romero Ranch.

Plaintiffs allege they are the present owners of the Romero Ranch, and are therefore successors-in-interest regarding the provisions of the Deed. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on October 24, 2008, and a First Amended Complaint was filed October 28, 2008. Defendant answered the First Amended Complaint on December 30, 2008.

More particularly, Plaintiffs assert three causes of action. The first and second claims seek "Adjudication of Title Dispute," whereas the final claim seeks declaratory relief. First, Plaintiffs claim the Deed requires that Defendant relocate a one-inch pipeline mentioned in the Deed, meant to provide stock water to Plaintiffs' adjacent land, at the southern boundary of the Subject Property, or to provide an adequate substitute. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has wrongfully refused to relocate the pipeline or to provide a substitute.

Second, Plaintiffs claim the Deed further requires Defendant to permit Plaintiffs access to Defendant's water transportation facilities to provide stock water to Plaintiffs' adjacent land, at the southern boundary of the Subject Property. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has wrongfully refused to allow said access.

Finally, Plaintiffs claim that a declaratory judgment pertaining to the two disputes is appropriate to allow the parties to understand their respective property rights and obligations.

Defendant denies each of Plaintiffs' claims.

B. Orders Re Amendment of Pleadings

No amendments are proposed at this time.

IV. Factual Summary

A. Uncontested Facts:

1. The relevant Deed is dated February 3, 1989, and was recorded in Merced County, California, on September 28, 1989.

2. A true and correct copy of the Deed is attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint.

3. The Subject Property is the property described in the Deed.

B. Contested Facts:

1. The parties contest all ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.