Larry Steven Wilkins; Jane B. Stanton v. United States of America

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY STEVEN WILKINS; JANE
B. STANTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-35745
D.C. No. 9:18-cv-
00147-DLC
ORDER
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Filed May 8, 2023
Before: EBEL,* BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
* The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2 W ILKINS V. U NITED STATES
SUMMARY**
Quiet Title Act
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilkins v.
United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 871 (2023) (holding that the
Quiet Title Act’s 12-year time limitation, 28 U.S.C. §
2409a(g), is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, and
reversing a decision of the Ninth Circuit, published at 13
F.4th 791 (9th Cir. 2021)), the panel remanded to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme
Court’s decision.
COUNSEL
Jeffrey W. McCoy (argued), Pacific Legal Foundation,
Highlands Ranch, Colorado; Damien M. Schiff and Ethan
Blevins, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California;
James M. Manley, Pacific Legal Foundation, Phoenix,
Arizona; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kevin W. McArdle (argued), Mark Steger Smith, John M.
Newman, and John L. Smeltzer, Attorneys; Jean E.
Williams, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Environment
and Natural Resources Division, United States Department
of Justice; Washington, D.C.; Babak Rastgoufard, Attorney;
Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of
Agriculture; Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

-- 2 of 3 --

W ILKINS V. U NITED STATES 3
ORDER
The United States Supreme Court reversed the
judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for
further proceedings. See Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct.
870, 881 (2023). We remand this case to the district court
for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s
decision.
The copy of this order shall act as and for the
mandate of this court.
REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --