Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Ron J. anderson, et al v. Greg Echols


June 27, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge


Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se, bring this civil action for, among other things, determination of ownership interests in the "Stringer Mine." Pending before the court is defendants' amended motion to dismiss (Doc. 28). A hearing was held before the undersigned in Redding, California, on June 27, 2012. All parties appeared pro se.

This case concerns a dispute over ownership of a mining claim located in Butte County. In their motion, defendants argue: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue; and (3) this court is the improper venue. Defendants' motion should be denied.

The basis of defendants' motion appears to be their belief that this case should not have been filed in federal court and, instead, belongs in the Butte County Superior Court. As to subject matter jurisdiction, they argue that a quiet title action, which they assert this is, can only be filed in state court and that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. They are incorrect. As indicated by statutory references in defendants' own motion, the dispute at the heart of this case is governed by a number of federal mining statutes and regulations because the mining claim at issue is located on federal land. Moreover, this case implicates federal mining laws codified at Title 30 of the United States Code. Specifically, 30 U.S.C. § 30 provides for judicial determination to determine issues concerning possession and ownership of mining claims.

As to venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, or a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Under either provision, this court is the proper venue because the subject of the action (the mining claim) is located in this district, and because the defendants are located in this district. In any event, defendants do not argue that a different federal court would be the appropriate venue. Instead, they argue more generally that the action should not have been brought in federal court at all and that the correct "venue" is the Butte County Superior Court.

Finally, as to capacity to sue, defendants argue that plaintiffs lost any interest in the mining claim as a result of various transfers of ownership interests. As plaintiffs note, this argument goes to the merits of plaintiffs complaint and not to their standing to sue.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 28) be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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