United States Of America v. Bogart et al

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion for motion for a Judicial Determination on the Law, (Doc. 86 .), is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on December 8, 2014. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DUSTIN BOGART, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 4:12-CV-347
(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

Statement of Facts and of the Case

This is a civil action brought by the United States, which seeks to obtain a
declaration regarding the validity of the Federal tax liens and nominee liens against
the property and rights to property owned by Dustin B. Bogart; to foreclose such liens
against this real property; and to sell the property, with the proceeds of the sale to be
distributed in accordance with the rights of the parties and the amounts subject to the
Federal tax liens and nominee liens to be paid to the United States and applied against
the tax liabilities of the defendants. (Doc. 1, ¶1.) This is one of two companion cases
filed by the United States against the defendants. There is also a companion case
filed by the United States in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee (Civil No. 3: 12-CV-179), a suit which sought, inter alia, to reduce to

judgment the Federal income tax assessments against Dustin B. Bogart for the 2000,
2001, 2002, and 2003 taxable years. (Id., ¶2.) The United States represents that in
this companion case in July of 2014 the federal court in Tennessee found in favor of
the government, and entered summary judgment against the defendants. (Doc. 79-1.)
It is against this legal and factual background that a number of motions have
been referred to us in this litigation for resolution. These motions include a motion
by the defendants, who are proceeding pro se, styled as a motion for a Judicial
Determination on the Law, which seeks to direct the Court to rule upon 12 legal
questions propounded by the plaintiffs in the abstract, questions which may, or may
not, have any relevance to the case or controversy before us but questions which are
posed in a hypothetical fashion that is unmoored to any proper request for relief in
this litigation. (Doc. 86.) Since this motion essentially calls upon us to issue a series
of advisory opinions, something that is forbidden by the United States Constitution,
for the reasons set forth below, we will deny this motion for a Judicial Determination
on the Law.
II.

Discussion

The defendants’ motion for a Judicial Determination on the Law, in our view,
runs afoul of the law in one important, and constitutional, respect. Since the founding
of this nation, it has been well-settled that “Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution
2

of the United States ‘limits federal jurisdiction to actual “cases” and “controversies.”
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Adams, 961 F.2d 405, 410 (3d Cir.1992). This
constitutional provision ‘stands as a direct prohibition on the issuance of advisory
opinions.’ Id.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Obusek, 72 F.3d 1148, 1153 (3d Cir. 1995).
Thus,

“[c]ourts

are

‘without

power

to

give

advisory

opinions.’

Rhone–Poulenc–Surfactants and Specialties, L.P. v. C.I.R., 249 F.3d 175, 182 (3d
Cir.2001) (quoting Alabama State Fed'n of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 461, 65
S.Ct. 1384, 89 L.Ed. 1725 (1945)) [and] [i]t is the court's ‘considered practice not to
decide abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions.’ Id. (quoting Alabama State
Fed'n of Labor, 325 U.S. at 461, 65 S.Ct. 1384).” Constitution Party of, Penn. v.
Cortes, 712 F. Supp. 2d 387, 397 98 (E.D. Pa. 2010) aff'd sub nom. The Constitution
Party Of Pennsylvania v. Cortes, 433 F. App'x 89 (3d Cir. 2011). Applying these
benchmarks courts have, therefore, declined to answer abstract legal questions posed
by a plaintiff when: “Any opinion addressing plaintiffs claims would be advisory.
It would be based on a hypothetical set of facts, without sufficient information to
support findings. See PSA, LLC v. Gonzales, 271 Fed.Appx. 218, 220 (3d Cir.2008)
(actions cannot result in an ‘opinion advising what the law would be on a
hypothetical set of facts’) (quoting Step–Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Technology
Software Link, Inc., 912 F.2d 643, 649 (3d Cir.1990)).” Constitution Party of, Penn.
3

v. Cortes, 712 F. Supp. 2d 387, 397 98 (E.D. Pa. 2010) aff'd sub nom. The
Constitution Party Of Pennsylvania v. Cortes, 433 F. App'x 89 (3d Cir. 2011).
Here, the Bogarts invite us to do precisely what the constitution forbids. They
ask us issue advisory opinions on 12 legal propositions based on a hypothetical set
of facts, without sufficient information to support findings. Because this request
confuses the role of this Court in our constitutional system and runs afoul of Article
III of the United States Constitution, this motion will be denied.
III.

Order

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for motion for
a Judicial Determination on the Law, (Doc. 86.), is DENIED.
So ordered this 8th day of December, 2014.

S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

4