The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM GRAMES, BROOKE
GRAMES, CRAIG B. DICKIE, CYNTHIA
D. DICKIE, JUDY H. JOHNSON, JAMES
KOSTAN, DIANE KOSTAN, PATRICK J.
LOYET and LISA A. LOYET,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No: 8:20-cv-739-T-36CPT
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA, ANN
D. BEGEMAN, PATRICK J. FUCHS,
MARTIN J. OBERMAN and SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Federal Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 48). In the motion,
Defendants Ann D. Begeman, Patrick D. Fuchs, Martin J. Oberman, and the Surface
Transportation Board (collectively “Federal Defendants”) argue Plaintiffs’ Complaint
should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Defendants
seek dismissal with prejudice of the claims against them in Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’
Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition (Doc. 72). A hearing on the motion
was held January 5, 2021. The Court, having considered the motion, heard argument
of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises will grant the Federal Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and permit Plaintiffs leave to amend their
Quiet Title Act claim in Count II.
I. BACKGROUND1
This is a rails-to-trails case concerning a 7.68-mile line of railroad in Sarasota
County, Florida that extended the Legacy Trail between Sarasota and Venice. The
Legacy Trail is a public recreational trail and a rail-trail corridor easement the federal
government “railbanked” under the National Trails System Act.2 Plaintiffs, William
and Brooke Grames, Craig B. and Cynthia D. Dickie, Judy H. Johnson, James and
Diane Kostan, and Patricia J. and Lisa A. Loyet, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are Florida
landowners who seek a declaration of the respective rights to their property and to
enjoin Sarasota County from removing or demolishing their private property in order
to build the northern extension of the Legacy Trail. In this putative class action,
Plaintiffs sue, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Federal
Defendants and Sarasota County, Florida, in a six-count Complaint for declaratory
relief, quiet title, injunctive relief, just compensation under the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, damages under the Uniform Relocation Act, and
compensation under Article X, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. Doc. 1
1 The following statement of facts is derived from Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1), the
allegations of which the Court must accept as true in ruling on the instant Motion to Dismiss.
Linder v. Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1992); Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v.
Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp. S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994 (11th Cir. 1983).
2 “The National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983 (Amendments), Pub. L. 98-11, 97
Stat. 48, to the National Trails System Act (Trails Act), Pub. L. 90-543, 82 Stat. 919 (codified,
as amended, at 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq.), is the culmination of congressional efforts to preserve
shrinking rail trackage by converting unused rights-of-way to recreational trails.” Preseault v.
I.C.C., 494 U.S. 1, 5 (1990).
Plaintiffs’ unconventional Complaint begins with a six-page explanation in
unnumbered paragraphs summarizing the case facts, history of the property
easements, and recitation of caselaw regarding Fifth Amendment takings, contrary to
the federal rules of pleading. Doc. 1 at 1–6. In the background allegations, Plaintiffs
allege that in the early 1900s much of the land now known as Sarasota County was
owned by Bertha Palmer and members of her family, including her son Adrian
Honore. Doc. 1, ¶ 9. In November 1910, Adrian Honore, the predecessor-in-interest
to present-day landowners, granted Seaboard Air Line Railway a right-of-way
easement across his land allowing Seaboard to build and operate a railway line from
Sarasota to Venice. Id. ¶ 11. The easement provided if at any time the railroad
abandoned the land for railroad purposes, the property would revert to Honore, his
heirs or assigns. Id. The right-of-way easement Honore gave Seaboard ultimately was
transferred to CSX Transportation (“CSXT”), which leased the railway line to
Seminole Gulf Railway, L.P. (“Seminole Gulf”). Id. ¶ 15.
By 2002 CSXT and Seminole Gulf no longer operated a railroad over the land,
nor had any need for the right-of-way. Id. ¶ 116. In March 2019, Seminole Gulf
requested the Surface Transportation Board (“the Board”) allow it to abandon the
7.68-mile segment of rail line between Sarasota and Venice. Id. ¶ 17. According to
Seminole Gulf, no local or overhead traffic had moved over the line since prior to
2007. Id. ¶ 18. After the railroads told the Board they wanted to abandon the railway
line, Sarasota County asked the Board to invoke section 8(d) of the Trails Act and
authorize Seminole Gulf and CSXT to transfer the otherwise abandoned right-of-way
to Sarasota County so that Sarasota County could build a public recreational trail
across these owners’ land. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiffs allege that Seminole Gulf and CSXT had
no right to transfer or sell any interest the railroads had in the land, unless transferring
to another railroad. Id. ¶ 21.
In May 2019, the Board issued an order called a Notice of Interim Trail Use
(“NITU”) invoking section 8(d) of the Trails Act, which provided that use of the right-
of-way for trail purposes was to be subject to a possible future reconstruction and
reactivation of the right-of-way for rail service (“railbanking”). Id. ¶ 22. This same
Seaboard railroad right-of-way was subject to prior Trails Act litigation in the Court
of Federal Claims and involved the southern section of the Legacy Trail. Id. ¶ 24.
The owners of the land taken for the northern extension – which is the subject
of this litigation – have also instituted litigation in the Court of Federal Claims, see
4023 Sawyer Road I, LLC v. United States. Id. ¶ 25. Because the Court of Federal Claims
has no jurisdiction over Sarasota County and can only award monetary damages, not
injunctive relief, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this Court. Id. ¶ 26.
In apparent reliance on the Board’s invoking section 8(d), Sarasota County sent
almost 300 landowners letters claiming their existing improvements, including pools,
septic fields, fences, sheds, and other structures, encroached upon property claimed by
Sarasota County for purposes of the recreational trail. Id. ¶ 27. Sarasota County,
among others, claims that the Board retains jurisdiction over the rail-trial corridor, but
that the Board has authorized Sarasota County to construct and operate a public
recreational trail across Plaintiffs’ land. Id. ¶ 28. Sarasota County adopted a public
bond to fund the cost, but such funds did not include compensating the owners for
their land that was taken for the Legacy Trail. Id. ¶ 29. While compensation for private
land takings for the Legacy Trail should be paid by the federal government, Plaintiffs
allege that Sarasota County must compensate the landowners for any interest it takes
that is greater than the interest taken by the Board. Id. ¶ 29.
Relevant to the instant motion, Plaintiffs sue the Federal Defendants in Counts
I and II. Count I seeks a judgment declaring “the rights and other legal relations” of
the Sarasota landowner Plaintiffs and the federal government Surface Transportation
Board regarding these owners’ private property, specifying the physical dimensions of
the rail-trail right-of-way easement established under the federal Trails Act, and
specifying Sarasota County’s right to use this land. Doc. 1, ¶ 110. Plaintiffs allege that
a controversy has arisen between the Plaintiff landowners and Sarasota County
together with the Federal Defendants as to the rights and status of the parties. Id. ¶ 95.
On May 14, 2019, the Federal Defendants invoked Section 8(d) of the Trails
Act and took property from Plaintiffs by encumbering their land with an easement for
recreation and railbanking.3 Doc. 1, ¶ 96. As a result, the federal government became
obligated to pay the Plaintiff landowners. Id. ¶ 99. Plaintiffs allege that the Federal
Defendants’ invocation of section 8(d) of the Federal Trails Act granted Sarasota
County the right to use Plaintiffs’ land for a public recreational trail and the
3 “Section 8(d) of the amended Trails Act provides that interim trail use ‘shall not be treated,
for any purposes of any law or rule of law, as an abandonment of the use of such rights-of-
way for railroad purposes.’” Preseault, 494 U.S. at 8 (quoting16 U.S.C. § 1247(d)).
responsibility to maintain the corridor for a possible future railroad line. Id. ¶ 102.
Plaintiffs claim that although Sarasota County has the power of eminent domain to
take private property without an owner’s consent, Sarasota County is relying upon
whatever authority it received by reason of the Federal Defendants’ invocation of
section 8(d) of the federal Trail Act. Id. ¶ 105. Plaintiffs assert that Sarasota County
has demanded, without citing any authority to do so, that the putative class members
remove improvements and structures from their private property for purposes of the
recreational trail. Id. ¶ 106. By their declaratory judgment action, Plaintiffs seek a
declaration of the parties’ rights and other legal relations regarding the owners’ private
property, and specifically the extent of Sarasota County’s right to use their land. Id. ¶
110.
In Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which consists of only three paragraphs
and does not incorporate any of the background allegations, Plaintiffs sue all
Defendants in a claim brought under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. Id. ¶ 111.
In pertinent part, § 2409a provides that the “United States may be named as a party
defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real
property in which the United States claims an interest . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a).
Plaintiffs allege the new rail-trail easement the federal government imposed across the
Plaintiffs’ property clouds and impairs the landowners’ title to their property and takes
property interests from them. Doc. 1, ¶ 112. Plaintiffs request the Court resolve the
matter and quiet title to these owners’ land and hold that Sarasota County does not
possess the authority to demand that these owners remove or demolish improvements
on their property. Id. ¶ 113. Federal Defendants move to dismiss with prejudice all
claims against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 48.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges
the court’s subject matter jurisdiction; Rule 12(b)(1) permits a facial or factual attack.
McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta–Richmond Cty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir.
2007). On a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack, the court evaluates whether the plaintiff “has
sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction” in the complaint and employs
standards similar to those governing Rule 12(b)(6) review. Houston v. Marod
Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335 (11th Cir. 2013). A Rule 12(b)(1) factual attack,
however, “challenge[s] the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective
of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits,
are considered.” Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). When the attack is factual, “the trial court is
free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the
case.” Id. Therefore, “no presumptive truthfulness attaches to [the] plaintiff’s
allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial court
from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims.” Id.
III. DISCUSSION
In their motion to dismiss, the Federal Defendants argue this Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over them because the United States has not waived its immunity
to a declaratory judgment claim. Rather, the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a,
provides the exclusive means to dispute real property where the United States is a
defendant.4 At the hearing and in their opposition brief, Plaintiffs treated the
declaratory judgment and Quiet Title actions interchangeably. The Eleventh Circuit
has explicitly stated, however, that the Quiet Title Act “provide[s] the exclusive means
by which adverse claimants [can] challenge the United States’ title to real property.”
F.E.B. Corp. v. United States, 818 F.3d 681, 685 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Block v. N.
Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273, 286 (1983)). Plaintiffs fail to offer
any authority to support their contention that the United States has waived sovereign
immunity as to Count I. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in Count
I is due to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Federal Defendants.
Regarding Count II, the Federal Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not
adequately pleaded any adverse interest with particularity as required by the express
terms of the Quiet Title Act and therefore have not met their burden to show a waiver
of sovereign immunity. The Quiet Title Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign
immunity of the United States for the purposes of determining title to disputed
property. See 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a); Block, 461 U.S. at 276. To invoke the Quiet Title
Act, a plaintiff must show the existence of a dispute “concerning the quality of title
4 In their motion, the Federal Defendants also argue that in the event the Quiet Title action
survives, the United States of America should be substituted as the properly named defendant
in lieu of the Board and individual Board members. Doc. 48 at 25. In their response to the
motion, Plaintiffs do not oppose naming the United States of America as Defendant. Doc. 72
at 20, n.18.
between the plaintiff and the United States.” McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936,
939 (11th Cir. 1999). In particular, the Act requires a complaint to “set forth with
particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the
real property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or
interest claimed by the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d). Plaintiffs’ allegations fall
short. As a preliminary matter, Count II consists of only three paragraphs. The general
background allegations were not incorporated into Count II and therefore may not be
considered in response to the motion. For that reason alone, the motion is due to be
granted.
But even if the Court were to consider the background facts as alleged by
Plaintiffs, the allegations still fail to identify with particularity the right, title or real
property interest claimed by the United States. The Court agrees with the Federal
Defendants that Plaintiffs’ claim that their titles are “clouded” does not satisfy the
specific pleadings requirements of § 2409a(d) and is too vague to establish a waiver of
sovereign immunity. The Federal Defendants cite to several opinions finding that the
trail sponsor (Sarasota County here), and not the United States, holds the interest in
the property. Doc. 48 at 19. Given the paucity of Plaintiffs’ allegations in Count II, it
is wholly unclear what, if any, interest Plaintiffs claim the United States holds in the
subject property. Accordingly, Count II is due to be dismissed. However, because
Quiet Title actions may be brought against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2409a, the Court will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint to see
if they are able to state such a claim.
Federal Defendants further urge that the United States is not a necessary party
for Plaintiffs’ Quiet Title Act claim or, at the least, Plaintiffs’ claim should be dismissed
as premature because Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to set aside or suspend, or
otherwise challenge, any order of the Board. Thus, the Federal Defendants claim there
is no justiciable controversy between Plaintiffs and the United States. To the extent
that the Federal Defendants contend there must be a challenge to a specific Board
order for a Quiet Title action to be ripe, the Court finds Defendants’ reading of § 2409a
to be too narrow. Notwithstanding, § 2409a permits a civil action to adjudicate a
disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest. Plaintiffs
have not identified the dispute vis-a-vis the United States, nor the interest claimed by
the United States.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
Memorandum in Support (Doc. 48) is GRANTED.
2. Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as to the
Federal Defendants. Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice, as to the Federal Defendants. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an
Amended Complaint,5 on or before January 22, 2021.
5 Although the Federal Defendants’ motion only addressed Counts I and II of the Complaint,
Plaintiffs may amend the entire Complaint, as needed, so that it conforms to the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Failure to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline will result in
dismissal of Count II, as to the Federal Defendants, without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 11, 2021.
lene Chara hp TO pl el □
Charlene Edwards Honeywell
United States District Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any
11