Smart-Tek Service Solutions Corp. v. United States Internal Revenue Service

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 13 Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 7/27/2015. (rlu)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SMART-TEK SERVICE CORP.,

5

Case No.: 15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

Plaintiff,

6

vs.

7

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE,

8
Defendant.
9
10
On May 4, 2015, Defendant, United States Internal Revenue Service
11
(“Defendant”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff, Smart-Tek Service Corporation’s
12
(“Plaintiff”) Complaint (“Compl.”) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the
13
alternative, for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. For the reasons
14
discussed below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant’s motion
15
for summary judgment is also DENIED without prejudice.
16
17
I.

BACKGROUND

18
On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action for declaratory and
19
injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552,
20
1
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

after exhausting its administrative remedies. Plaintiff is a dissolved Florida

2

corporation that had its last place of business in San Diego, California. (Compl. ¶

3

5; Doc. 13-2.) Plaintiff was incorporated in Florida on January 12, 2010, and was

4

administratively dissolved on September 27, 2013 for failing to file its annual report

5

and pay its filing fee. (Doc. 13-2, Exh. A).

6

On May 12, 2014, Plaintiff sent Defendant a written request for agency

7

records under FOIA. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17.) On September 29, 2014, Defendant

8

acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request without making a final determination at

9

that time. (Id. at ¶ 11.) On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff again contacted Defendant

10

by certified letter, stating that it would bring this action if Defendant failed to provide

11

the requested documents by the end of that month. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Other than

12

Defendant’s letter confirming receipt of Plaintiff’s FOIA request, Plaintiff alleges

13

that it received no other responsive documentation from Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

14
15
16

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing

17

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dismissal under Rule

18

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is appropriate only when the complaint does

19

not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds

20

on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In
2
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the court will take

2

all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to

3

the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

4

In the Ninth Circuit, the capacity of a dissolved corporation to sue or be

5

sued is governed by the laws of the state of incorporation. See Levin Metals

6

Corp. v. Parr-Richmond Terminal Co., 817 F.2d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1987); Fed.

7

R. Civ. P. 17(b)(2) (“[t]he capacity of a corporation to sue or be sued shall be

8

determined by the law under which it was organized.”).

9
10

III.

DISCUSSION

11

Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff is a dissolved

12

corporation, and therefore lacks the capacity to bring a suit under Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

17(b)(2). In opposition, Plaintiff argues that under Florida law, it has the capacity

14

to sue in the course of “winding up” its business. In the alternative, Defendant

15

moves for summary judgment on the basis of one attached exhibit showing that

16

Plaintiff was administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report (Doc. 13-

17

2).

18
19

As discussed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has legal capacity to sue
and that a motion for summary judgment is premature.

20
3
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Capacity to Sue

2

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 607.1622(8) states that “[a]ny corporation failing to file an

3

annual report . . . shall not be permitted to maintain or defend any action in any

4

court of this state until such report is filed and all fees and taxes due under this act

5

are paid and shall be subject to dissolution[.]” The effect of dissolution under this

6

provision is modified by § 607.1405, which provides, in relevant part:

7
8
9

(1) A dissolved corporation continues its corporate existence but may
not carry on any business except that appropriate to wind up and
liquidate its business and affairs, including:
(c) Discharging or making provision for discharging its liabilities;
and

10
11
12
13

(e) Doing every other act necessary to wind up and liquidate its
business and affairs.
(2) Dissolution of a corporation does not:
(e) Prevent commencement of a proceeding by or against the
corporation in its corporate name;

14
15

Additionally, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 607.1421(3), outlining the procedure for and effect

16

of administrative dissolution, further provides that “[a] corporation administratively

17

dissolved continues its corporate existence but may not carry on any business

18

except that necessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs under §

19

607.1405 and notify claimants under § 607.1406.”

20
4
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

Courts interpreting these provisions have held that a corporation

2

administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual report under Fla. Stat. §

3

607.1222, retains its capacity to sue and be sued under Fla. Stat. § 607.1405 and

4

§ 607.1421 as “necessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs.” Asbury

5

v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue Service, 2007 WL 675892, at *4 (U.S. Tax Ct. 2007)

6

(“According to [§§607.1421 and 607.1405] of the Florida Statutes, an

7

administratively dissolved Florida corporation continues in existence indefinitely to

8

wind up and liquidate its business and affairs, and it retains the right to sue and be

9

sued in its own name.”). See also Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315

10

F.3d 1304, 1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Nat'l Judgment Recovery Agency, Inc. v.

11

Harris, 826 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. App. 4th 2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 890

12

(Fla. 2003); Cygnet Homes, Inc., v. Kaleny Ltd., Inc., 681 So.2d 826 (Fla. App. 5th

13

1996); but see Trans-Health Management Inc. v. Nunziata, 159 So.3d 850, 855–

14

56 (Fla. App. 2nd 2014) (stating that the “more specific” provisions of §

15

607.1622(8) control over the “more general” provisions of § 607.1405(2)(e), but

16

failing to address the statue’s exception for dissolved companies in the course of

17

winding up).

18

Determining, adjusting, and settling tax liabilities have all been found to lie

19

within the parameters of winding up. See Asbury, 2007 WL 675892, at *4; see also

20

H. D. Walbridge & Co. v. C.I.R., 25 B.T.A.M. 1109, 1109, 1932 WL 487 (B.T.A.
5
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

1932) (stating that “determination of the corporation's tax liability [is] an act incident

2

to the winding up of the corporate affairs . . .”).

3

While agreeing that under Florida law, Plaintiff would have legal capacity to

4

sue on matters related to winding up its business, Defendant contends that Plaintiff

5

has not established how this action will aid it in winding up. Defendant asserts that

6

the requested records have no effect on Plaintiff’s ability to resolve its tax liabilities

7

and attempts to distinguish Plaintiff’s cited legal authority from the present FOIA

8

lawsuit on grounds that those cases involved direct challenges to dissolved

9

corporations’ tax liabilities.

10

Viewing the alleged facts in Plaintiff’s favor, see Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v.

11

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FOIA

12

suit falls within the realm of statutorily permitted acts for dissolved Florida

13

corporations because it seeks documents that may be necessary for determining

14

and settling Plaintiff’s tax liabilities in the course of winding up. By attempting to

15

obtain such tax-related agency records, Plaintiff is not conducting new business

16

prohibited by Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1). Instead, Plaintiff is taking steps that are a

17

part of a corporation’s winding up process after dissolution. Therefore, the Court

18

finds that Plaintiff has capacity to sue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(2) and DENIES

19

Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

20
6
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

2

In the Ninth Circuit, summary judgment is not generally granted prior to an

3

opportunity for parties to conduct discovery. See Inlandboatmens Union of Pacific

4

v. Dutra Group, 279 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). Neither are motions to

5

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(6)(b) converted into motions for summary

6

judgment except at the court’s discretion. See N. Star Int'l v. Arizona Corp.

7

Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 582 (9th Cir. 1983). Courts are unlikely to grant summary

8

judgment on a weak evidentiary record. See Century Surety Co. v. Master Design

9

Drywall, Inc., 2009 WL 3425326 at *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2009) (summarizing

10

similar authority).

11

At this point in the litigation, the evidentiary record is limited to a single exhibit

12

confirming that Plaintiff was administratively dissolved for failure to file an annual

13

report. It is premature to grant summary judgment on the basis of this record.

14

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED but may be

15

renewed after the parties have had an opportunity to conduct further discovery.

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///
7
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)

1

III. CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

3

Defendant’s motion in the alternative for summary judgment is DENIED without

4

prejudice. Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint within 14 days of the

5

entry of this Order.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
8
15cv00452 BTM(JMA)