properly abandoned as prescribed by statute.... ” Tucker v. Watkins, 251 Cal.App.2d 327, 59 Cal.Rptr. 453 (1967); Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba, 101 Cal.App.4th 278, 130 Cal.Rptr .2d 436, 458 (2002); San Diego Cnty. v. California Water and Tel. Co., 30 Cal.2d 817, 186 P.2d 124 (Cal. 1947);West’s Ann.Cal.Str. & H.Code § 901. If Hazel Green could assert a claim against the United States, whether the County owned or abandoned the road would be established as a fact over the course of the litigation. The fact that Hazel Green needs the County to assert its ownership of the roads in order to preserve its easement claim against the United States, only confirms that its interest is not sufficient to be asserted under the Quiet Title Act. See, e.g., Staley, 168 F.Supp.2d at 1214
holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding that right of landowner abutting county road was not sufficient interest to assert a claim under the quiet title act and noting that ujnless plaintiffs can convince the county of boulder to join as a coplaintiff in this action the court lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county