BRATTAIN v. GRAVERSON et al
Filing
10
ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 8 , and DISMISSES Mr. Brattain's claim against the United States. The United States removed this matter under § 1444 on th e basis of its lien on the Property. Now that Mr. Brattain's claim against the United States has been resolved, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Brattain's remaining claims, and no party has alleged or asserted any alternative basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, partial final judgment in favor of the United States and an order remanding the remainder of Mr. Brattain's claims to state court will issue separately (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/9/2018. (DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
DONALD R. BRATTAIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS G. GRAVERSON, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:17-cv-00505-JMS-MJD
ORDER
Plaintiff Donald Brattain brought this lawsuit in state court to quiet title to a property in
Brazil, Indiana (“the Property”). [Filing No. 1-1 at 3-6.] On November 1, 2017, Defendant United
States Department of the Treasury (“United States”) removed the matter to this Court. [Filing No.
1.] Now before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, [Filing No.
8], to which Mr. Brattain has not responded. The United States argues that while Mr. Brattain’s
lawsuit purports to be a quiet title action, it in effect seeks to extinguish the United States’ lien on
the Property. The United States argues that it is entitled to sovereign immunity from an action to
extinguish its lien and therefore argues that it should be dismissed from this lawsuit. For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment on the
pleadings after the filing of the complaint and answer. Moss v. Martin, 473 F.3d 694, 698 (7th
Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court may only consider the
complaint, answer, and any documents attached thereto as exhibits. See N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor
Shows, Inc. v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452-53 (7th Cir. 1998).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) “is governed by the same
standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” Adams v. City
of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727-28 (7th Cir. 2014). To survive the motion, “a complaint must
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Adams, 742 F.3d at 728 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Factual
allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, but allegations that are legal conclusions are
insufficient to survive the motion. Adams, 742 F.3d at 728. In other words, to survive dismissal,
a plaintiff “must plead some facts that suggest a right to relief that is beyond the speculative level.”
Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).
II.
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2017, Mr. Brattain filed his Verified Complaint in Indiana state court,
seeking to quiet title to the Property he acquired in a tax sale. [Filing No. 1-1 at 3-6.] According
to Mr. Brattain’s Complaint, the property was previously owned by one Thomas G. Graverson.
[Filing No. 1-1 at 3.] Mr. Brattain alleged the following as to the United States’ interest in the
Property:
United States Department of the Treasury has been named a defendant to assert any
interest it may have in the real estate described above due to Federal Tax Lien
against Thomas G. Graverson dated June 27, 2013 and recorded July 10, 2013 in
Official Record 138, page 2057 in the amount of $210,014.27.
[Filing No. 1-1 at 5.] In its Answer, the United States admits that it holds an “interest in the
property set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint by virtue of a lien arising under the Internal Revenue
laws in the total assessed amount of approximately $155,274.32, as of November 30, 2017, plus
2
interest and penalties from the date or dates of assessment, notices of which were filed with the
county recorder on: July 10, 2013.”
On November 1, 2017, the United States removed this matter to this Court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1444, which permits the United States to remove actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2410 to quiet title to
property on which the United States has a lien. [Filing No. 1.] On January 10, 2018, the United
States filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [Filing No. 8.] The time for Mr. Brattain
to respond has expired, see S.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(c)(2)(A), and the United States’ Motion is therefore
ripe for decision.
III.
DISCUSSION
The United States argues that Mr. Brattain’s claim against it is barred by sovereign
immunity. [Filing No. 9.] The United States argues that Mr. Brattain’s lawsuit, despite its label
as a quiet title action, actually seeks to extinguish the United States’ tax lien on the Property.
[Filing No. 9 at 3.] The United States argues that Mr. Brattain’s Complaint alleges that the United
States has a tax lien on the Property and does not purport to challenge the validity of the lien.
[Filing No. 9 at 4.] The United States argues that it has not waived its sovereign immunity with
regard to such claims and that the authority to extinguish a federal tax lien rests with the Secretary
of the Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6325(b). [Filing No. 9 at 4-5.] Mr. Brattain did not
respond to the United States’ Motion.
The United States’ arguments are well taken. Mr. Brattain’s Complaint alleges that the
United States holds a tax lien against the Property. [Filing No. 1-1 at 5.] Mr. Brattain’s quiet title
action is therefore an action to extinguish this lien. See E.J. Friedman Co. v. United States, 6 F.3d
1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993); Genesis Air, LLC v. United States, 2012 WL 529885, at *1 (N.D. Miss.
2012) (collecting cases). The Court must therefore discern whether the United States has waived
3
its sovereign immunity with respect to this type of lawsuit; “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity
shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475
(1994).
Congress has waived sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a) for actions to quiet
title to property in which the United States has an interest. E.J. Friedman Co., 6 F.3d at 1358.
But, as multiple courts have concluded, “a quiet title action is not the appropriate vehicle to . . .
extinguish [a] tax lien[].” Genesis Air, LLC, 2012 WL 529885, at *1 (citing United States v.
Morrison, 247 F.2d 285, 291 (5th Cir. 1957)). Rather, in a separate provision specifically
addressed to tax liens, Congress has granted the Secretary of the Treasury the discretionary
authority to discharge liens under certain circumstances. See 26 U.S.C. § 6325(b); E.J. Friedman
Co., 6 F.3d at 1358. Actions to extinguish tax liens thus fall outside the purview of the § 2410
sovereign immunity waiver. See E.J. Friedman Co., 6 F.3d at 1358; Genesis Air, 2012 WL
529885, at *1.
As noted above, Mr. Brattain’s claim against the United States is properly characterized as
one to extinguish the United States’ tax lien. Such as a claim does not fall within the § 2410
sovereign immunity waiver, and Mr. Brattain has failed to identify any other basis for waiver.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Brattain’s claim against the United States must be
dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, [8], and DISMISSES Mr. Brattain’s claim against the United States. The United
States removed this matter under § 1444 on the basis of its lien on the Property. Now that Mr.
Brattain’s claim against the United States has been resolved, the Court declines to exercise
4
supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Brattain’s remaining claims, and no party has alleged or
asserted any alternative basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, partial final judgment in favor of the
United States and an order remanding the remainder of Mr. Brattain’s claims to state court will
issue separately.
Date: 3/9/2018
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?