J.B. v. United States ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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.
3