Free Response to Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 14.3 kB
Pages: 2
Date: July 3, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 388 Words, 2,530 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22192/73.pdf

Download Response to Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact - District Court of Federal Claims ( 14.3 kB)


Preview Response to Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00271-RHH

Document 73

Filed 07/03/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

JACK LADD and MARIE LADD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 07-271 L Honorable Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS IN RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant responds to Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Facts In Response to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 64, as follows: Plaintiffs' Proposed Fact 1: The government and/or their agents have physically occupied the Plaintiffs' land since the federal Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use on July 25, 2006. See affidavits of John Ladd, John Gay, and Charlie Miller, a copy of eached is attached respectively as Exhibits 1, 2, and, 3. See also letter from John Ladd to the U.S. Border Patrol, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4. Defendant's Response to Proposed Fact 1: Defendant disputes this proposed finding. Defendant agrees that the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use ("NITU") on July 25, 2006, which became effective on July 26, 2006. Defendant disagrees with all of the remaining allegations set forth in the proposed finding. Defendant disagrees that the government and/or its agents have physically occupied the Plaintiffs' land. Defendant also 1

Case 1:07-cv-00271-RHH

Document 73

Filed 07/03/2008

Page 2 of 2

disagrees with the proposed finding to the extent that it suggests that Plaintiffs own the railroad corridor described in the NITU. Plaintiffs do not have any property interest in the railroad corridor. Finally, Defendant disagrees with the proposed finding to the extent that it suggests that the NITU authorized any new physical occupation of the instant railroad corridor. July 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted, RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Rachel A. Dougan RACHEL A. DOUGAN JAMES D. GETTE Trial Attorneys Natural Resources Section Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice Benjamin Franklin Station, P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044-0663 Telephone: (202) 616-5082 Facsimile: (202) 305-0506 [email protected] Of Counsel: ELLEN D. HANSON, General Counsel EVELYN KITAY, Attorney Surface Transportation Board Office of General Counsel 395 E Street, SW Washington, DC 20024

2