McMaster v. United States, No. 11-17489 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. 2409a; Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.; and Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), 28 U.S.C. 2201-02, seeking to quiet fee-simple title to the Oro Grande mining claim and its improvements. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6); with regard to plaintiff's first QTA claim, the court concluded that the Solicitor's Opinion was entitled to at least Skidmore deference, and, thus, plaintiff did not have a "valid existing right" to a fee-simple patent on its Oro Grande mining claim; with regard to plaintiff's second QTA claim, plaintiff did not plead with particularity the circumstances under which its title to the structures was acquired; and since the QTA was the exclusive means for challenging the United States' title to real property, the court concluded that the district court also properly dismissed plaintiff's APA and DJA claims.
Court Description: Quiet Title Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of the claims of the owner of the Oro Grande mining claim, located in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area in California, in the claim holder’s action against the United States seeking to quiet fee-simple title to the mining claim and its improvements. The panel held that the Quiet Title Act was the exclusive means for the claim holder to bring suit, and therefore the district court properly dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgment Act claims. Regarding the claim holder’s Quiet Title Act claims, the panel held that the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior’s Opinion, which included an interpretation of the Wilderness Act that was contrary to the claim holder’s interpretation, was entitled to at least Skidmore deference, and, thus, the claim holder did not have a “valid existing right” to a fee-simple patent when he filed his patent application. In addition, the panel held that the claim holder’s second Quiet Title Act claim failed because the claim holder failed to plead with particularity the circumstances under which title to the improvements was acquired.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.