The underlying dispute centers on the Sand Dunes Road in southern Utah. The road is currently paved, except for a 4-mile section near Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Park that is chip-sealed. Kane County and the State of Utah sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, seeking a decree quieting title to an R.S. 2477 public highway right-of-way for the road. The plaintiffs alleged that title had been established in prior litigation and claimed a right-of-way width of 66 feet from the centerline.
Rather than file an answer, the United States filed a Partial Quiet Title Act Disclaimer under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(e), later amended to clarify its scope. The Amended Partial Disclaimer states that the United States disclaims any title interest in the Sand Dunes Road that is consistent with a two-lane highway that was established by October 21, 1976, including the right to conduct routine maintenance. The amended disclaimer adopts the road centerline described in the plaintiffs' complaint but determines width based on actual surface disturbance in 1976 rather than a uniform 66-foot measurement — a distinction the United States acknowledged results in a scope including 66 feet in some areas but a narrower width in others.
District Judge David Nuffer, in the District of Utah, granted the motion to confirm the Amended Partial Disclaimer. The court held that while the disclaimer may be inconsistent in minor ways with the relief sought in the complaint, the United States and Kane County are in full agreement, and that agreement will be consummated when the disclaimer is confirmed and Kane County dismisses its claims. The court ordered that if Kane County files a voluntary dismissal within fourteen days of the filing of the confirmation order, the case will be dismissed; otherwise, further proceedings on SUWA's motion to intervene will follow so that litigation may proceed as to any remaining issues.
The court also rejected the intervention bid by SUWA, which had moved to intervene after the original partial disclaimer was filed, seeking both to file a motion to dismiss and to contest Kane County's title and scope claims. The court noted that an order granting SUWA's intervention had been entered but then withdrawn after the court became aware of the Amended Partial Disclaimer. Relying on Leisnoi, Inc. v. U.S., 313 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002), the court held that once the United States files a disclaimer and the plaintiff dismisses its claims, no controversy remains in which a proposed intervenor could participate. The court held that SUWA advanced no persuasive authority or argument for jurisdiction being retained or why the Amended Partial Disclaimer should not be confirmed.
In a footnote, the court also observed that the statute's text — authorizing a disclaimer of all interest in the real property or interest therein — clearly authorizes a disclaimer of less than all the federal interest in all the disputed property, rejecting SUWA's argument to the contrary.