UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 8, 2010
FRIENDS OF HOPE VALLEY, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
FREDERICK COMPANY, A/K/A DRESSLER COMPANY, A/K/A FRED D. DRESSLER COMPANY, A NEVADA PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANT.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Frederick Company's ("Defendant's") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff Friends of Hope Valley ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. The Court heard oral argument on October 6, 2010, and ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of the location of the easement sought by Plaintiff. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing, the Court orders as follows:
For the reasons stated at the hearing, summary judgment as to the patented parcels is GRANTED. Plaintiff cannot establish a necessary element of its quiet title claim as it relates to that portion of Defendant's property that was acquired by federal patent in February 1969. These patented parcels were not privately owned for any five- year period before the cause of action for implied-in-law dedication of a public recreational easement was eliminated in March 1972.
As to the remaining parcels, Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether a public recreational easement exists on those parcels. The Court also finds that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the issue of whether Plaintiff can or cannot establish a through easement on the two trails referenced in the complaint. Accordingly, summary judgment on Plaintiff's quiet title claim with respect to the remaining parcels and two trails is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.