J.B. v. United States

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

J.B.; P.B., No. 16-17054

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-02138-YGR

v. ORDER* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submission Deferred April 12, 2018 Submitted June 11, 2020 San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER,** District Judge.

Appellants filed this action to stop Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits of

their tax returns for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. During the pendency of

this appeal, Appellants and the Government reached a settlement that resolved the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 2011, 2012, and 2013 audits. The Government has now moved to dismiss the

appeal as moot.

Although Appellants acknowledge that the 2011, 2012, and 2013 audits have

been conclusively resolved, they argue that a live controversy remains because

they have been harassed by the IRS in the past and could face similar harassment

in the future. However, a review of the operative complaint shows that the alleged

harassment was in the form of the now-resolved audits. While the complaint

alleged that the stress of the audits was detrimental to Appellants’ health, it sought

only non-monetary relief related to the audits, not damages to compensate for

Appellants’ alleged physical injuries. Finally, although Appellants now argue that

they may be subject to future audits (and harassment) by the IRS, this contention is

based on nothing more than speculation that is insufficient to give rise to a live

controversy. Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.3d 1423, 1425 (9th Cir. 1997). We

therefore agree with the Government that this appeal is moot.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot (Dkt.

# 84) is GRANTED.1 Appellants’ motion for further briefing and oral argument

(Dkt. # 101) is DENIED.

Appellants’ motion to partially redact the Government’s March 17, 2020

1 Appellants’ motion for judicial notice of documents submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 95) is GRANTED.

2 filing (Dkt. # 110) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to maintain the

Government filing at Dkt. # 100 under seal. An appropriately redacted public

version of this filing is available as Exhibit A to Appellants’ motion for partial

redaction.

All pending motions to file documents under seal (Dkts. # 45, 46, 93, 94) are

GRANTED.

A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court.

DISMISSED.