PILTAN v. USA

Filing 10

UNREPORTED OPINION AND ORDER granting 8 Def.'s Motion to Dismiss; dismissing 1 Pl.'s Complaint. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (tbs) Service on parties made.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
(Pro Se)

BEHZAD PILTAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 23-1819T
(Filed: March 27, 2024)

Behzad Piltan, Pro Se, Canoga Park, CA.
Melissa A. Hammer, Trial Attorney, Court of Federal Claims Section, Tax Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were David I. Pincus, Chief, Court of
Federal Claims Section, and David A. Hubbert, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
KAPLAN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Behzad Piltan, proceeding pro se, alleges in his complaint that the IRS
wrongfully disallowed his 2016 tax refund claim and seeks a refund in the amount of $8,376.00
plus applicable interest. Compl. at A6–A7, Docket No. 1. In response, the government moved to
dismiss Mr. Piltan’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). It
argues, among other things, that the case became moot after Mr. Piltan filed suit in this Court
when the IRS refunded the full amount of the alleged overpayment plus interest. See Def.’s Mot.
to Dismiss at 1, 6, Docket No. 8 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.]. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court concludes that this case is moot. Therefore, the government’s motion to dismiss, Docket
No. 8, is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court accepts
as true all undisputed facts in the pleadings and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The
Court may “inquire into jurisdictional facts” to determine whether it has jurisdiction, Rocovich v.
United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and may consider all pleadings as well as
matters of which it may take judicial notice, see Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC v. United States,
841 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing RCFC 10(c)).
When a case becomes moot, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and it must order
dismissal without proceeding further. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,

94–95 (1998). Mootness doctrine arises out of the “case or controversy” requirement of Article
III of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S.
83, 94–95 (1968). Although the jurisdiction of this Court, as an Article I court, is not limited by
the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III, this Court and other Article I courts apply
many Article III justiciability precepts—including the doctrine of mootness—to resolve
dispositive motions on prudential grounds. See, e.g., Schooling v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 204,
208 n.7 (2004) (dismissing case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because claims asserted in
the complaint were moot); CW Gov’t Travel, Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 554, 558 (2000)
(citing Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1996)) (granting motion to dismiss
for mootness). See also Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1350 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(“The Court of Federal Claims, though an Article I court . . . applies the same standing
requirements enforced by other federal courts created under Article III.”).
The Supreme Court has stated that “a case is moot when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cnty. of L.A. v.
Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)).
Claims for money, such as the claim involved in this case, generally become moot when the
plaintiff receives the compensation sought in their complaint. See Haddock v. United States, 161
Fed. Cl. 6, 17 (2022) (collecting cases). Here, the IRS paid Mr. Piltan the full amount of the
refund he requested plus statutory interest on December 11, 2023. See Def.’s Mot. at 6; see also
App. to Def.’s Mot., Ex. 1, at 4, Docket No. 8-1. As a result, Mr. Piltan has received the
compensation he sought in his complaint. Because his complaint is now moot, dismissal is
therefore warranted. See Davis, 440 U.S. at 631; Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, 490
F.3d 934, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When, during the course of litigation, it develops that the relief
sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no
longer at issue, the case should generally be dismissed.”).
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, Docket No. 8, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 1, is therefore
DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ELAINE D. KAPLAN
Chief Judge