MACVEST GROUP INC. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 10

LETTER OPINION, etc. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/16/2018. (JB, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHAMBERS OF

MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
50 WALNUT ST.
NEWARK, NJ 07101
973-645-5903

SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 16, 2018

Nelson Wagner, Esq.
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice Tax Division
P.O. Box 227
Washington, D.C. 20044
Counsel for Defendants
Frank Agostino, Esq.
Agostino & Associates
14 Washington Place
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Counsel for Plaintiff

LETTER OPINION FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT
Re:

Macvest Group, Inc. v. United States of America, et al.
Civil Action No. 17-9833 (SDW) (LDW)

Counsel:
Before this Court is Defendants United States of America, the Department of the Treasury,
the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), Steven T. Mnuchin (“Mnuchin”), Brian Knaus (“Knaus”),
and Rudolph Schuele’s (“Schuele”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Counts II
through IV of Plaintiff Macvest Group, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint and all defendants except
the IRS. 1 This Court having considered the parties’ submissions, having reached its decision
without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, for the reasons discussed
below, GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

1

Although Defendants do not identify the rule under which they bring their motion, this Court construes it as being
brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).

BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 27, 2017, Plaintiff, a Delaware corporation, filed a four-count Complaint in
this Court against Defendants alleging that the IRS had failed to properly respond to Plaintiff’s
requests under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”). (Compl. ¶¶ 23-30.)
Defendants Knaus and Schuele are employed by the IRS as Revenue Agents. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)
Defendant Mnuchin is the current Secretary of the Treasury. (Id. ¶ 7.) Count One of the
Complaint seeks to compel Defendant IRS to produce documents Plaintiff requested under
FOIA. Counts Two through Four seek the same relief under the Administrative Procedures Act
(“APA”) (5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.), the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361), and the Privacy Act
(5 U.S.C. §§ 552a), respectively. Counts One and Four appear to be brought solely against the
IRS, Count Two against all Defendants, and Count Three against Defendants IRS, Knaus,
Schuele, and Mnuchin.
On October 11, 2017, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss, arguing that Counts
Two through Four were redundant and/or barred. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff filed its opposition on
January 2, 2018, and Defendants replied on January 9, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 7-9.)
DISCUSSION
All four counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint seek the same relief: the disclosure of documents
Plaintiff sought from the IRS via FOIA requests. Count One, which Defendants do not seek to
dismiss and which Defendant IRS has answered, asks for disclosure under FOIA, which
empowers this Court to “enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the
production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552
(a)(4)(B). Plaintiff’s FOIA claim provides it with a complete and adequate remedy for the IRS’s
alleged wrongful withholding of information. Consequently, Plaintiff’s APA and Mandamus
claims are barred because claims under those statutes are permitted only where a plaintiff has no
other means of relief. See, e.g., Ctr. Platte Nat. Res. Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t Agric., 643 F.3d 1142,
1148 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “the APA only allows review where there exists ‘no other
adequate remedy in a court’”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704); Grant v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 1331, 1342
(3d Cir. 1993) (stating that “Mandamus is available only if, among other things, the plaintiff has
no other adequate avenue of relief”); Nationwide Ambulance Servs., Inc. v. Sebelius, 2013 WL
4776048, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 3, 2013) (same). Because Plaintiff has an alternate adequate
remedy under FOIA, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review its Mandamus Act and APA claims.
Therefore, Counts Two and Three will be dismissed.
Claims under the Privacy Act may only be brought by individuals. See 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C.
§ 552 a(g)(1)(D) (stating that an “individual may bring a civil action against the agency”); see
also Pub. Emp. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. E.P.A., 926 F. Supp. 2d 48, 55 (D.D.C. 2013)
(noting that “[u]nlike FOIA, the [Privacy Act] extends no rights to organizations or
corporations”). As a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff may not bring suit under the Privacy Act.
Therefore, Count Four will also be dismissed.
Because only Count One, which seeks relief only against the IRS, remains, and because
FOIA claims may only be brought against agencies and not individuals, the United States of

2

America, the Department of the Treasury, and the individual defendants will also be dismissed
from this action. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B) (stating that the court has jurisdiction to hear
claims brought against a government “agency”); Nelson v. United States, 2015 WL 6501243, at
*4 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (noting that “courts have consistently held that individual government
officials are not properly named as defendants in FOIA lawsuits”) (collecting cases).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. An
appropriate order follows.
___/s/ Susan D. Wigenton_____
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
Orig: Clerk
cc:
Parties
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.

3