Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States of America, Omar Stratman, Applicant in Intervention-Appellant
Docket: 02-35190
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 19, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Omar Stratman appeals the dismissal of his motion to intervene in a Quiet Title Act case brought by Leisnoi, Inc., an Alaska Native village corporation, against the United States. The Quiet Title Act allows disputes over property title where the U.S. claims an interest. The United States filed a disclaimer of interest in the property before trial, which the district court confirmed, thus quieting title in Leisnoi and dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Stratman's motion to intervene, submitted before the disclaimer, was dismissed as moot.
This case marks the third appearance in the Ninth Circuit, with previous rulings detailing the complex background. Leisnoi received land from the U.S. in 1985 under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Stratman, who has ranching operations on this land, argues that Leisnoi is not a qualified Native Village under ANCSA and claims the land should revert to the federal government. Leisnoi's attempts to sell land to Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees have been impeded by concerns regarding the validity of their title, stemming from a notice of lis pendens filed by Stratman related to a decertification action questioning Leisnoi's status under ANCSA. A previous state court ruling supported Leisnoi's title against Stratman, but uncertainties remain about potential federal reversion due to ongoing administrative proceedings.
Leisnoi initiated a federal lawsuit against the United States under the Quiet Title Act to confirm that the land would not revert to the government. The district court initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was no title dispute since the United States claimed no adverse interest and Stratman's claim had been rejected by a state court. Subsequently, the Alaska Supreme Court vacated the state court's decision, allowing Stratman's notice of lis pendens to indicate potential reversion of Leisnoi's land. Leisnoi then filed a second federal action, which was initially dismissed again, but upon appeal, it was determined that the reinstatement of the lis pendens created a title dispute, thus granting jurisdiction.
Upon remand, the district court accepted jurisdiction, Stratman sought to intervene, and the United States disclaimed title, leading the court to confirm Leisnoi's title. The court then dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction stemming from the disclaimer, rendering Stratman's intervention moot. Stratman appealed the dismissal of his motion to intervene, which was deemed a final appealable order. The court reviewed the denial of intervention de novo, ultimately finding no error in the district court's dismissal as the disclaimer eliminated any controversy in which Stratman could participate.
Stratman argued that the district court wrongly dismissed his motion as moot, asserting that his motion, filed prior to the United States’ disclaimer of title, remained valid and could lead to an appeal of the dismissal judgment. However, two critical flaws undermined his argument: he did not provide legal authority mandating a specific order for addressing motions, and he lacked a sufficient interest to contest the dismissal since he did not seek to intervene to assert a title claim, but rather claimed that the United States was entitled to Leisnoi's land. The court emphasized that a challenger must demonstrate entitlement to the patent in question, not merely argue against the patentee's validity. The potential for Leisnoi's land to revert to the United States was within the government's discretion to address through its disclaimer, which was deemed appropriate. The Attorney General has the authority to oversee and potentially dismiss suits regarding federal land patents. Consequently, Stratman retained no right of appeal, affirming the district court's ruling that his intervention motion was moot. The court confirmed the dismissal of Stratman's motion and addressed related procedural matters, affirming the district court's decisions and maintaining that Stratman's challenges were beyond the appeal’s jurisdiction.
