Rojas v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 4, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-04075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CESAR A. ROJAS, et al., Case No. 24-cv-04075-TLT

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING FOR LACK OF 9 v. JURISDICTION

10 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 19, 26 al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs Cesar Rojas and Greysa Ramirez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek injunctive relief 14 against Defendants United States and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), prohibiting them from 15 collecting federal income taxes as well as compensatory and punitive damages. ECF 2. Before 16 the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ allegations. ECF 19. Defendants allege 17 that (1) the case is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel; (2) the Court lacks subject matter 18 jurisdiction over this action; (3) Plaintiffs fails to state a cognizable legal claim; and (4) Plaintiffs 19 fail to otherwise show that they are entitled to equitable relief. Id. 20 Having considered the motions and briefings, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ Complaint 21 for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act for the reasons stated below. 22 As a result, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Permanent Injunction are 23 DENIED as moot. 24 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND 25 On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint and a motion for temporary injunction 26 against the IRS to enjoin the Government from levying taxes against them and to request millions 27 in damages. Rojas v. IRS, 3:24-cv-00725 (Rojas I). ECF 1, 2, 10. On May 15, 2024, the Court 1 barred by the AIA and DJA, and that this Court does not have jurisdiction. Rojas I, ECF 21. 2 On July 5, 2024, Plaintiffs again filed suit and moved for a permanent injunction against 3 the IRS. Rojas v. United States, 3:24-cv-04075 (Rojas II). ECF 1, 2. This new motion for a 4 permanent injunction makes nearly identical arguments as the first. ECF 2. In both, Plaintiffs 5 argue that they do not have to pay federal income taxes under the Ninth and Sixteenth 6 Amendments. Id. Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss. ECF 19. Defendants also filed 7 a motion to vacate case management conference and related deadlines. ECF 20. When Plaintiffs 8 failed to respond to either motion, Defendants filed a reply to both. ECF 21, 22. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 11 As a threshold matter, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case. The Anti- 12 Injunction Act (“AIA”), which bars plaintiffs from filing “suit[s] for the purpose of restraining the 13 assessment or collection of any tax,” also precludes federal jurisdiction unless a plaintiff is able to 14 demonstrate (1) irreparable injury or (2) certainty of success on the merits. 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a); 15 Hansen v. Dep’t of Treasury, 528 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 16 416 U.S. 725, 737 (1974)). Similarly, the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”), which precludes 17 federal courts from granting declaratory relief “with respect to Federal Taxes,” does not confer 18 federal subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); Knapp v. Depuy Synthes Sales Inc., 983 19 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1176 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Instead, “there must be an independent basis for such 20 jurisdiction.” Knapp, 983 F. Supp. 2d at 1176 (citing Staacke v. United States Secretary of Labor, 21 841 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1988)). 22 Here, as in Rojas I, Plaintiffs have not identified any of the statutory exceptions specified 23 in the AIA or the DJA. Plaintiffs did not include facts suggesting an irreparable injury or certainty 24 of success on the merits. Plaintiffs instead argue that the IRS’ attempt to “tax is both illegal and 25 un-Constitutional.” Rojas II, ECF 2, at 3. Plaintiffs also failed to file a response to either 26 Defendants’ motion to dismiss or motion to vacate. Because Plaintiffs have not sufficiently plead 27 an exception to the AIA, the AIA bars Plaintiffs’ claims. The DJA also bars Plaintiffs’ claims. 1 over the matter. 2 Because the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court declines to review the other three causes of 3 action in Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 4 || I. CONCLUSION 5 After review and consideration of the motion and briefings, the Court DISMISSES 6 || Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court DENIES Defendants’ 7 || Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction as moot. 8 The Clerk of the Court is ordered to close the case and terminate the matter. The hearing 9 scheduled for November 5, 2024 is hereby vacated. 10 This order resolves ECF 2, 19, and 26. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 3, 2024

14 United States District Judge

2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28