Welch v. Hamilton
WELCH v. HAMILTON Et Al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Louderback (author)
Analysis
The court considered a bill in equity to quiet title to a Los Angeles property, where the United States was named as a defendant alongside other California citizens. The court dismissed the bill because the United States had not consented to be sued in a quiet title action, and there was no diversity jurisdiction to support the claims against the remaining defendants.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the bill of complaint“Therefore, this action having been improperly brought against the United States, and there being no proper' jurisdictional grounds for its being in the United States District Court as regards the other defendants, it is hereby directed that the biE be dismissed.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the United States possesses sovereign immunity and cannot be sued without congressional consent. The court correctly noted that no statute at the time authorized a quiet title action against the United States. Furthermore, the court correctly identified that because all other parties were California citizens, diversity jurisdiction was absent, leaving no basis for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the remaining defendants after the United States was dismissed or for the suit to proceed at all. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity to bar the suit against the United States and correctly identifies the lack of diversity jurisdiction to support the suit against the remaining defendants. The reasoning is concise but fully addresses the jurisdictional defects.
Opinion — Louderback
LOUDERBACK, District Judge.
This matter involves a suit in equity to quiet title to a certain lot, piece, or parcel of land in the city of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, state of California, known as lot 131, tract 4612, as shown by Maps, Book No. 51, at page 79, Official Records of Los Angeles county, and praying a decree that the plaintiff be and is the owner1 in fee simple of said property, free and clear of all incumbrances on the part of the defendants.
It is alleged in the bill of complaint that the four defendants enumerated claim an interest or lien in the above-described property. All the parties to this suit, excepting the United States of America, are residents and citizens of the state of California. Therefore there is no issue of diversity of citizenship presented upon which jurisdiction may be given to this District Court. Jurisdiction is based solely upon the fact that the United States is a party to the suit. No other basis for jurisdiction appears on ’the face of the pleadings.
It is well-established law that the United States of America or its property cannot be sued without the consent of Congress. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 16 S. Ct. 443, 40 L. Ed. 599; Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255, 16 S. Ct. 754, 40 L. Ed. 960; Bielecky et al. v. U. S. (D. C.) 26 F.(2d) 746.
Congress has never enacted any statute authorizing a suit to quiet title against the United States of America, and to so debar it from asserting any claim, interest or lien. Therefore, this action having been improperly brought against the United States, and there being no proper' jurisdictional grounds for its being in the United States District Court as regards the other defendants, it is hereby directed that the biE be dismissed.
Cited by
- Coson v. United States Civ. 20872-TC · 1958-12-30