Neighborhood Improvement Projects, LLC v. United States , 692 F. App'x 433 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    JUN 07 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT                         No.   16-15114
    PROJECTS, LLC,
    D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00523-DLR
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN
    and JANE DOES, 1 through 10
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted May 11, 2017
    Pasadena, California
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,**
    Chief District Judge.
    Plaintiff-Appellant Neighborhood Improvement Projects, LLC (NIP) appeals
    the district court’s order granting Defendant-Appellee United States’s motion for
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Dana L. Christensen, United States Chief District
    Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    summary judgment. On appeal, NIP argues that the district court erroneously
    concluded that the Casa Norte Homeowners Association lien was not choate before
    the federal tax lien arose. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not
    recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
    We do not reach the merits of NIP’s quiet title action appeal because we find
    this appeal is moot with respect to that issue. “[M]ootness can arise at any stage of
    litigation” and “federal courts may not ‘give opinions upon moot questions or
    abstract propositions.’” Calderon v. Moore, 
    518 U.S. 149
    , 150 (1996) (per curiam)
    (quoting Mills v. Green, 
    159 U.S. 651
    , 653 (1895)). “[I]f an event occurs while a
    case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any
    effectual relief whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.”
    Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 
    506 U.S. 9
    , 12 (1992) (quoting
    
    Mills, 159 U.S. at 653
    ). One week before the district court ruled on the motion for
    summary judgment, NIP sold the subject real property to a third party. Following
    the entry of judgment, NIP’s escrow agent paid off the IRS lien, thus satisfying the
    previous owner’s 2008 income tax liability. The IRS then released the federal tax
    lien which is the subject of this dispute. The relief NIP seeks here is a court
    declaration concerning the respective lien priority rights between NIP and the IRS.
    2
    Because the IRS lien was released, there are no longer competing liens on the
    subject property. Title is no longer clouded, the HOA and IRS liens have been
    paid off (so determining priority has no real world effect), and any judgment would
    have no impact on future purchasers. Thus, the appeal is moot.1
    Further, to the extent that NIP has a damage claim, the United States has not
    waived sovereign immunity. Bank of Hemet v. United States, 
    643 F.2d 661
    , 665
    (9th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he presence of a waiver of sovereign immunity should be
    determined as of the date the complaint was filed[.]”). The United States waived
    its sovereign immunity with respect to NIP’s quiet title action pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 2410, but such waiver does not extend to an action for damages. See
    United States v. Mitchell, 
    445 U.S. 535
    , 538 (1980); Ringer v. Basile, 
    645 F. Supp. 1517
    , 1526 (D. Colo. 1986).
    AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.
    1
    No decision we make could lead to a monetary award for NIP sufficient to
    defeat mootness. The Arizona statute that NIP’s quiet title action is brought under,
    A.R.S. § 33-420(B), does not authorize damages. And a quiet title action cannot
    be brought for a tax refund. See Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 
    492 F.3d 1084
    , 1092 (9th Cir. 2007). A claim for attorneys’ fees is insufficient to create a
    case or controversy where none exists. Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 
    494 U.S. 471
    ,
    480 (1990).
    3