A federal judge has denied the request for a stay regarding his decision that corner crossing is not trespassing while the case is appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Iron Bar Holdings LLC, owned by Fred Eschelman, asked U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl for the District of Wyoming to review his decision that four hunters from Missouri did not trespass when they corner-crossed the Elk Mountain Ranch in Wyoming because they did not touch the property or its airspace and did not damage the property.
History
The four hunters crossed from one parcel of public property to another at a corner with a survey marker designating which parcels were public and which were Eschelman’s property. In 2020, the hunters encountered an obstacle, causing them to swing over a steel post using the airspace over Eschelman’s property, but not damaging it. In 2021, the hunters used a small A-frame ladder over a “No Trespassing” sign to cross from one parcel of public land to another.
Eschelman’s property manager approached the hunters several times about passing over the corner and spoke with the prosecuting attorney to convince the sheriff to issue a trespassing violation to the hunters and a Game and Fish officer to say they were not allowed on public lands again. The hunters were acquitted of trespassing following a jury trial in 2021.
Iron Bar Holdings also brought a civil suit against the hunters, claiming they caused more than $7 million in damage.
Eschelman filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals after he filed a withdrawal of remaining claim and Skavdahl issued a final judgment.
The appeals court “identified a possible jurisdictional defect” and declared “briefing on the merits is suspended pending further order of this court.” The jurisdictional defect was that neither the withdrawal nor the judgment uses the term “dismiss” or “with or without prejudice.”
The appeals court gave lawyers for Eschelman the opportunity to either file a memorandum brief explaining the withdrawal of the claim could be deemed final, or go to the district court to establish finality of the case.
Eschelman filed a motion for stay pending appeal in U.S. District Court to rectify the matter.
Lawyers for the hunters argued Eschelman has not made a “strong showing” that it is likely to prevail in its appeal, or show that it is likely to suffer an irreparable injury absent a stay.
Ryan A. Semerad, the hunters’ lawyer, further argued that while the defendants admit they will not suffer personally or directly substantial injuries, the public interest must be considered.
“The public has a distinct and deep interest in having access to public lands,” Semerad wrote. “This court’s order did not change or supplement preexisting law; instead, it provided much needed clarity that preexisting law affords public access to otherwise ‘corner-locked’ lands in the checkerboard by careful corner crossing.”
Ruling
Skavdahl stated in court documents there are four factors for evaluating a stay in the matter: whether the applicant can show they are likely to succeed based on merits, whether they will be injured absent a stay, whether the stay will injure other parties interested in the proceedings and where the public interest lies.
“Nothing in plaintiff’s request for a stay convinces the court that the plaintiff is strongly likely to prevail on appeal; it is simply a rehash of its summary-judgment position, which the court continues to find unconvincing,” Skavdahl wrote. “Accordingly, this factor weighs against imposing any stay pending appeal.”
Skavdahl further stated while Eschelman’s employees were at risk of harm through emails and messages, the correlation between the messages and the court’s decision was erroneous. Skavdahl also discredited the assertions by Eschelman that the ranch would be overrun with people and its business would suffer, saying it is a speculation.
Skavdahl continued Eschelman’s claim of a loss of property value caused by the summary judgment was misguided as any loss of value had been artificially inflated based on an incorrect assumption of the law.
Skavdahl concluded the issuance of a stay would harm the public who seek to access public lands on a checkerboard pattern in a “non-confrontational, non-damaging corner crossing passing over the airspace above plaintiff’s land.”
Skavdahl went on to warn public land users about the decision.
“A physical confrontation with a private landowner instigated by a member of the public may prove to be the single surest way for the plaintiff to secure a stay pending appeal,” the judge wrote. “The actions of a few can ruin the opportunities for many.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
