Court: District Court, D. Arizona; January 10, 2018; Federal District Court
Three motions are currently before the court concerning a dispute over land interests in Mohave County, Arizona, related to the Emerald Isle Mine. The first motion, filed by Emerald Copper Corp. (Emerald), seeks reconsideration of a prior court order or relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2). Sunburst Minerals, LLC (Sunburst) has responded to this motion. The second motion involves Emerald's request for partial summary judgment, supported by a statement of facts, to which Sunburst has opposed with its own statements. Emerald has provided a reply.
The third motion is Sunburst's attempt to strike Emerald’s filing that includes a reply statement of facts, which Sunburst argues is not authorized under Local Rule 7.2(m). Emerald contends its filing is necessary for its objections to evidence under Rule 56(c)(2) and argues that the prohibition against reply statements of fact is a recent development. The court emphasizes that allowing new evidence on reply without giving the opposing party a chance to respond could lead to reversible error.
The court previously granted partial summary judgment favoring Sunburst regarding certain claims and mill sites, asserting conflicting possessory interests between the parties, with Sunburst claiming that Emerald’s junior claims are invalid due to overlapping with Sunburst’s senior claims.
Emerald's objections to evidence presented by the non-moving party, Sunburst, are invalid as they were filed in a separate document, contrary to Local Rule 7.2(m)(2), which requires objections to be included in the reply memorandum, limited to eleven pages. Emerald's submission exceeded this limit, totaling twenty-one pages without seeking court permission. Consequently, the court emphasizes the necessity for adherence to Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Sunburst's motion is denied as moot since there is no need to consider Emerald's new evidence or objections.
Emerald seeks reconsideration of a prior court opinion for four reasons: (1) the discovery of new facts indicating a dispute regarding Sunburst's alleged abandonment of "Mineral Survey Claims"; (2) an assertion that the court incorrectly ruled on the validity of oversized lode claims; (3) a request to present new evidence proving notification to Sunburst's predecessor about oversized "Block Claims"; and (4) a plea to vacate the summary judgment granted to Sunburst regarding its FDR claim due to potential invalidity.
Under LRCiv 7.2(g), motions for reconsideration are typically denied unless there is a demonstration of manifest error or new facts that could not have been previously presented. Courts may grant such motions if the moving party shows that material facts were overlooked. Additionally, Rule 60(b)(2) allows relief based on newly discovered evidence if it meets specific criteria: it must be genuinely new, the party must have exercised due diligence to discover it, and its significance must be substantial enough to potentially alter the case outcome.
Emerald's attempt to demonstrate abandonment of its Mineral Survey Claims through new evidence was unsuccessful. In response to Sunburst's motion for partial summary judgment, which asserted that Emerald lacked evidence of invalid claims, Emerald first argued that the BLM's records indicated no annual assessment work was conducted, suggesting abandonment. However, the court found that BLM records confirmed that the necessary assessment work was completed.
Emerald’s second argument relied on affidavits from Earnest Schaaf and Brian Dirk Hatter, who claimed they could not locate monuments on the claims in 2012 and 2015, suggesting a failure to monument in accordance with A.R.S. 27-203, which stipulates that improper monumentation results in abandonment. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the observations made decades after the claims were located could not adequately contest the locators' attestations of proper monumentation.
Emerald's third argument presented new evidence regarding a potential leak from the PLS pond at the Emerald Mine. Emerald claimed it was alerted in May 2017 to possible leaking and subsequently informed BLM geologists in August 2017. Additionally, a declaration from Sunburst’s former Vice President indicated prior knowledge of malfunctioning leak detectors in 2012, yet no corrective action was taken. Emerald argued this evidence indicated Sunburst’s failure to address the leak constituted abandonment of the Mineral Survey Claims. However, the court concluded that Emerald did not satisfy its burden of proving it exercised reasonable diligence regarding the claims.
Emerald claims to have been alerted to a potential leak in the PLS Pond at the end of May 2017, after opposing Sunburst's summary judgment motion, and asserts it confirmed the leak between May and July 2017. However, Emerald fails to clarify the three-month delay in confirming the leak and does not file a Rule 56(d) affidavit to request more time for discovery despite the leak's relevance to its opposition. Additionally, the evidence presented by Emerald was already in its possession by September 14, 2017, prior to the court's ruling on Sunburst's motion on September 25. As such, the evidence cannot be considered "newly discovered." Emerald also does not demonstrate that this evidence would likely alter the case outcome. To prove abandonment, Emerald must show Sunburst's subjective intent to abandon the Mineral Survey claims alongside objective actions. The evidence does not convincingly indicate such intent; notably, Sunburst's inactions regarding the leak do not constitute clear evidence of abandonment. Emerald fails to cite any case law supporting the claim that a party's failure to remediate an environmental hazard signifies abandonment. Contrary evidence exists, including cease and desist letters, environmental assessments, and property evaluations conducted by Sunburst and its predecessor, suggesting that disputes over ownership and other factors may explain the lack of remediation rather than an intent to abandon.
The excess portion of an oversized lode claim is deemed invalid regardless of whether the locator had an opportunity to resize the claim, as specified by the Mining Law of 1872, which limits lode claims to 600 feet in width. Emerald contested Sunburst's summary judgment by referencing the Arizona Court of Appeals' ruling in Velasco v. Mallory, which holds that a locator's good faith claim remains valid until notified and given a chance to resize. Emerald claimed that Sunburst was notified about the oversized Block Claims but failed to act; however, the court granted Sunburst summary judgment due to Emerald's lack of supporting evidence. Emerald requested reconsideration, asserting that Velasco misapplied a precedent from Jones v. Wild Goose Mining, which pertains to placer claims, not lode claims. Emerald cited Lakin v. Roberts, which states oversized lode claims exceeding statutory limits are void for the excess. Sunburst countered that Lakin's context differs since it involves federal patent authority rather than private rights, a distinction the court found unconvincing. The court determined it must adhere to the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of federal law, granting Emerald’s motion for reconsideration and deeming Sunburst’s oversized claims invalid to the extent of the excess.
Emerald's additional arguments regarding the FDR claim were ruled untimely. Although Emerald contended that Sunburst's mill site claims were invalid due to non-mineral land, the court found Emerald had not provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. Emerald did not seek to revisit this ruling but argued that if the mill sites were mineral in character, the overlapping FDR claim portion would be invalid. This argument was deemed waived as it was not raised earlier. Furthermore, even if it hadn't been waived, the argument lacked merit due to the absence of evidence to substantiate the non-mineral character of the land. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment on Sunburst’s FDR claim.
Emerald seeks partial summary judgment on two matters: (1) the validity of its mining claims that do not overlap with Sunburst's claims, and (2) the invalidity of Sunburst's Block Claims. Summary judgment is warranted when there are no genuine disputes over material facts, and the moving party meets the burden of proof concerning essential elements of the case. The nonmoving party must provide concrete evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying solely on allegations.
Emerald's motion regarding its claims not overlapping with Sunburst's fails because it does not specify actual claims or defenses for which summary judgment is sought. In addressing Sunburst's Block Claims, Emerald argues two points: first, that the Block Claims are invalid if they exceed 600 feet in width, which is granted; second, that the Block Claims are wholly invalid due to failure to resize after being notified of their oversized nature. This latter argument is denied because, according to precedent, notice does not affect the validity of oversized claims.
In conclusion, the court grants summary judgment in part, declaring Sunburst's Block Claims invalid beyond 600 feet, while denying all other motions, including the one based on newly discovered evidence.
