May 19, 2016
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s procedural ruling that denied the city of Santa Monica’s request to clarify ownership of California’s historic Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO), returning the case for further proceedings.
Proponents for the embattled airfield, including NBAA, had requested the appeals court uphold the ruling that the city’s challenge (which had the ulterior purpose of voiding certain federal obligations) was untimely.
In February 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the city was too late in its efforts to dispute terms of the 1948 “instrument of transfer” agreement that returned control over the newly-expanded military airfield to the city. A condition of that agreement was that SMO be maintained as a public-use airport in perpetuity.
City officials countered that Santa Monica never relinquished its title to the airport land when it leased the property to the U.S. government ahead of World War II; thus, the public use condition was invalid. The court held that the deadline for the city to raise the issue had expired years earlier.
Earlier this year, NBAA joined with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) in supporting the response of the FAA and U.S. Department of Justice to the city’s appeal, which emphasized that any questions over title ownership to the airport must be settled under the terms of the Quiet Title Act, which requires such lawsuits to be filed within 12 years after a claimant learns of the federal government’s interest in the property.
However, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit concluded there was insufficient evidence that the city previously had known that FAA interpreted the agreement to impose a perpetual use condition, and directed the district court to further consider the case.
Alex Gertsen, NBAA director for airports and ground infrastructure, said that the May 16 ruling is not a victory for the city, and does not get it closer to its goal of closing SMO.
“The appeals court essentially ruled it didn’t have enough information to determine whether the city’s claim was timely and procedurally proper,” he said. “This outcome is not a surprise, and it’s important to note the ruling did not address the merits of the city’s position.”
With the question over control of SMO land now returning to district court, Gertsen noted it will again be heard by Judge John Walter, who in 2014 ruled in favor of the FAA’s position that was also supported by NBAA, AOPA and other stakeholders.
“Judge Walter got it right the first time,” said Stacy Howard, NBAA Western regional representative. “Additionally, the district court will have the opportunity to hear evidence that never came before the appeals court, including testimony provided under oath from a former Santa Monica deputy attorney that directly contradicts the city’s position on when it became aware of the FAA’s position on the meaning of the 1948 instrument of transfer.
“We believe that upon further review by the district court, the city’s claims will once again be rejected as procedurally defective, as well as substantively incorrect,” she said.
The city must continue to operate SMO as the case is further considered before the district court, including through any additional appeals, a process likely to play out over the next several years.
International Business Aviation Council Ltd.