Boneyard Acquisitions LLC v. Bibb County et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/20/2018. (TLM, )

FILED
2018 Mar-20 AM 09:05
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BONEYARD ACQUISITIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIBB COUNTY, et al.
Defendants.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

2:17-cv-02090-UJB-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 4). The court WILL DISMISS the complaint because
the case does not involve a substantial question of federal law.
Plaintiff Boneyard Acquisitions is a corporation that “garages, repairs and maintains
commercial aircraft.” (Doc. 1 at 3). Defendants are Bibb County, Chairman of the Bibb County
Commission Ricky Hubbard, and Bibb County Administrator Mark Tyner. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff
alleges that in 2010, the Bibb County Airport, which Bibb County owns, granted Plaintiff an
easement to provide aircrafts access to the airport from Plaintiff’s hanger. (Id. at 2–3). But
although Plaintiff has satisfied all the conditions necessary to keep the easement in effect, on
June 15, 2017, Defendants constructed a trench across the easement to prevent aircraft access to
the airport. (Id. at 3).
According to Plaintiff, Defendants explained that they constructed the trench because the
Federal Aviation Administration “mandated that the easement must be extinguished pursuant to
[Federal Aviation Administration] regulation and/or requirement,” and failure to comply with
those laws and/or regulations risked past and future federal grant monies. (Id. at 3, 5–6).

Plaintiff alleges that no such law or regulation actually exists. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff brings claims
for (1) injunctive relief; (2) conversion; (3) misrepresentation; (4) trespass; (5) abuse of process;
and (6) fraud. (Id. at 4–10).
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.
4). They contend that all of Plaintiff’s claims stem from state law, with only a vague assertion
that Federal Aviation Administration regulations are involved. (Doc. 5 at 2–3). Plaintiff
responds that all but one of its claims arise from Defendants’ invocation of Federal Aviation
Administration regulations to justify their actions. (Doc. 7 at 1).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a district court to dismiss for “lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “A defendant can move to dismiss a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by either facial or factual
attack.” Stalley v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). In this
case, Defendants make only a facial attack on the court’s jurisdiction, which means that the
court, accepting as true the factual allegations in the complaint, merely looks to see “if the
plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 1232–33 (quotation
marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
Section 1331 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “[t]he district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In general, “a case arises under federal law only if it is
federal law that creates the cause of action.” Diaz v. Sheppard, 85 F.3d 1502, 1505 (11th Cir.
1996). The case may also arise under federal law if “the right to relief under state law requires
resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties.” Id. (quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis added). “[T]he mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of

2