Langan v. Langan

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-08136
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Morgan Joseph Langan, No. CV-22-08136-PCT-GMS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Morgan Joseph Langan, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court are Defendant Land Listing, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss 17 (Doc. 19) and Defendant Yavapai County’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 18 (Doc. 24). For the following reasons, Yavapai County’s motion is granted. As a result, 19 Land Listing, LLC’s motion is denied as moot. 20 On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff, Mr. Morgan Joseph Langan, filed this lawsuit against 21 various defendants, including Yavapai County and Land Listing, LCC, a private 22 corporation located in Arizona. Plaintiff’s operative complaint seeks to quiet title to a 23 parcel of land in Yavapai County. (Doc. 13 at 2.) On November 3, 2022, Land Listing, 24 LLC, filed a Motion to Dismiss for improper notice of removal. (Doc. 19.) On December 25 15, 2022, Yavapai County filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 26 (Doc. 24.) 27 Jurisdictional determinations are a preliminary issue; thus, the Court considers 28 Yavapai County’s motion first. Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 1 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007). A motion to dismiss is properly granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 12(b)(1) when a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims. “Attacks 3 on jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) can be either facial, confining the inquiry to the 4 allegations in the complaint, or factual, permitting the court to look beyond the complaint.” 5 Brooke v. Kashl Corp., 362 F. Supp. 3d 864, 871 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Savage v. 6 Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003)). When a defendant 7 files a 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. 8 Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). 9 Here, Yavapai County challenges Plaintiff’s amended complaint on its face, arguing 10 that it fails to allege a valid federal cause of action and inadequately pleads the 11 requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1332. (Doc. 24 at 7–9.) In part, 12 the amended complaint suggests that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this 13 case because the parcel at issue has been traced back to a federal land patent. (Doc. 13 at 14 7–10.) However, “a controversy in respect of lands has never been regarded as presenting 15 a Federal question merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act 16 of Congress.” Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710, 713 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting Oneida Indian 17 Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 676–77 (1974)). As to diversity 18 jurisdiction, the operative complaint makes no argument. Plaintiff does not appear to allege 19 an amount in controversy and does not allege that the parties are completely diverse.1 20 Indeed, Plaintiff does not object to Yavapai County’s motion to dismiss in any 21 respect. Instead, in Doc. 25, styled as “NOTICE of Acceptance (Non-Negotiable),” 22 Plaintiff states that he does not present any arguments about “the fact, jurisdiction, law, or 23 venue” and asks the Court to discharge his case. (Doc. 26.) In his subsequent filings, he 24 appears to express contrition for filing this case and reiterates his desire to terminate this 25 action. Thus, finding Yavapai County’s jurisdictional argument persuasive and 26 uncontroverted, the Court dismisses this case. 27 1 Also of note: Mr. Langan is listed as both Plaintiff and Defendant in this case, which 28 necessarily precludes complete diversity. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Yavapai County’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 3|| Jurisdiction (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. 4 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Land Listing, LLC’s Motion to || Dismiss (Doc. 19) is DENIED as moot. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. 8 Dated this 30th day of January, 2023. Uh 10 A Whacrsay Sooo) 11 Chief United states District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-