Wright & Miller § 2751 (“[The declaratory judgment remedy] relieves potential defendants ‘from the Damoclean threat of impending litigation which a harassing adversary might brandish, while initiating suit at his leisure-or never.’ ” (citing Japan Gas Lighter Ass’n v. Ronson Corp., 257 F.Supp. 219, 237 (D.N.J.1966)). In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the Court to deny plaintiffs the right to proceed, eve 261, 265 (2d Cir.1984) (“Ordinarily, a judgment in an ejectment or quiet title action will not affect the interests of others than the parties or those in privity with them. Such actions do not operate in rem upon the land itself, and therefore principles of collateral estoppel by judgment are not implicated.”); Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 24 F. 154, 158 (C.C.D.Or.1885) (<HOLDING>). That said, the Court sees no reason why the
recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims holding that a plaintiffs attempt to quiet title failed because the plaintiff could not furnish competent evidence that the description in the deed includes any or all of the real estate which is admitted by the parties to be the subject of controversy 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 the united states may bring suit against a state to enforce compliance with federal law