- 38 -
a claim against the State of California pursuant to California
Health and Safety Code section 13009 for the Government’s expense
of fighting a fire negligently set to a national forest. The
majority conveniently dismisses such relevant precedent,
relegating its mention to a footnote, and noting that the Ninth
Circuit has never applied this exception in transferee liability
cases. The majority does not, however,
provide any reasoning as to why there is a relevant distinction
between substantive claims provided for by California State law
that regard transferee liability versus liability in connection
with the expenses incurred for fighting negligently set fires.
Another relevant Ninth Circuit case is United States v.
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 460 F.2d 17, 18 (9th Cir. 1972).
There, the Ninth Circuit held that the United States "was barred
from recovery because of its failure to comply with the California
Insurance Code" requiring suit to be brought within 1 year. Id.
The Ninth Circuit recognized that United States v. Summerlin, 310
U.S. 414 (1940), provided "clear authority for the proposition
that an action vested in the United States cannot be defeated by
a state statute of limitations". United States v. Hartford
Accident & Idem. Co., supra at 19. However, the Ninth Circuit
determined that neither Summerlin nor its progeny "hold that
considerations of federal supremacy can create a cause of action
where none exists under state law or otherwise." Id. (citing
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011