Buckovetz v. U.S. Department of the Navy ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS M. BUCKOVETZ, Case No.: 23-CV-1942-CAB-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS 14 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY [Doc. No. 4] 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant the United States Department of 18 the Navy’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign 19 immunity. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court finds it suitable for 20 determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil 21 Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted and the 22 complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 23 I. Allegations in the Complaint 24 Pro se Plaintiff Dennis M. Buckovetz entered into a rental agreement with Lock & 25 Leave LLC for a self-storage unit located on Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island in 26 Coronado, California. He alleges that he contracted to rent a unit that was 4 feet by 4 feet 27 by 8 feet in size, but that the unit was actually smaller. He alleges that he made a claim to 28 1 Lock & Leave for “equitable relief” and that the “Navy, as the final arbiter, ruled on and 2 denied [his] claim.” Complaint at ¶ 38. The Navy did not respond to his appeal of this 3 denial, and Lock & Leave “unilaterally terminated” his rental agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 38-39. 4 Plaintiff then filed the instant lawsuit asking for “equitable relief” from the Navy. 5 Id. at ¶ 41. The complaint alleges that it “is made under the provisions of the 6 Administrative Procedure Act” and requests review of the Navy’s denial of his “request 7 for equitable relief and that the denial be set aside as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of 8 discretion.” Id. at ¶ 8. The Navy moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 9 on the grounds of sovereign immunity. 10 II. Discussion 11 “An action can be brought by a party against the United States only to the extent that 12 the Federal Government waives its sovereign immunity.” Esquivel v. United States, 21 13 F.4th 565, 572 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426, 1429 14 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The Navy 15 cannot be sued absent an express Congressional waiver of sovereign immunity.”). “If the 16 United States has not waived sovereign immunity, then the court where the suit is filed 17 must dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” United Aeronautical Corp. 18 v. United States Air Force, 80 F.4th 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2023). 19 In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction based on the 20 Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. “The APA waives 21 sovereign immunity for actions in federal district court by ‘person[s] suffering legal wrong 22 because of agency action.’” United Aeronautical Corp., 80 F.4th at 1022 (quoting 5 U.S.C. 23 § 702). The APA, however, “does not waive sovereign immunity for contract claims 24 seeking equitable relief.” N. Star Alaska v. United States, 14 F.3d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1994) 25 (emphasis in original; quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted); see also RAJMP, 26 Inc. v. United States, No. 19-CV-876 AJB (WVG), 2020 WL 905592, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27 25, 2020) (“The Ninth Circuit has held several times that the APA does not waive sovereign 28 immunity over non-monetary, contract-based claims because the Tucker Act impliedly 1 || forbids equitable relief.”’). Whether a claim implicates the waiver of sovereign immunity 2 the APA or is actually a contract claim depends on the “source of the rights upon which 3 || the plaintiff bases its claim.” N. Star Alaska, 14 F.3d at 37 (quoting Megapulse, Inc. v. 4 || Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). 5 Here, the source of the rights on which Plaintiff bases his claim is his rental 6 ||agreement with Lock & Leave. The first sentence of the complaint states: “[t]his case 7 ||centers on whether a contract for rental self-storage units . . . means what it says.” 8 ||Complaint at § 1. Meanwhile, in a section with the heading “cause of action,” Plaintiff 9 asserts: “[t]he Navy through Lock & Leave charged me the contract-defined rental price 10 |/for a 4’ x 4’ x 8 closet size storage unit but provided me less than the advertised and 11 ||/contract-defined 4° x 4’ x 8’ of unobstructed storage space.” Complaint at § 41. 12 || Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts a claim for equitable relief based on contract, so the waiver 13 || of sovereign immunity in the APA does not apply. 14 II. Conclusion 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 16 |}complaint. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 4] 17 |}is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 18 It is SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 23, 2024 € 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28