Filed: Oct. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . This suit centers on an ownership dispute over a condominium in Bethesda, Maryland. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 9). The plaintiff, Michelle Reyes, alleges she continuously made payments on a mortgage held in the name of the defendant, Raymond Hinish. Id. at 3. After nine years of Reyes' residing at the condominium, the defendants brought a civil action to evict Reyes in state court. Id. at 4. Reyes raises several state law claims
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . This suit centers on an ownership dispute over a condominium in Bethesda, Maryland. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 9). The plaintiff, Michelle Reyes, alleges she continuously made payments on a mortgage held in the name of the defendant, Raymond Hinish. Id. at 3. After nine years of Reyes' residing at the condominium, the defendants brought a civil action to evict Reyes in state court. Id. at 4. Reyes raises several state law claims ..
More
MEMORANDUM
CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.
This suit centers on an ownership dispute over a condominium in Bethesda, Maryland. (Pl.'s First Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 9). The plaintiff, Michelle Reyes, alleges she continuously made payments on a mortgage held in the name of the defendant, Raymond Hinish. Id. at 3. After nine years of Reyes' residing at the condominium, the defendants brought a civil action to evict Reyes in state court. Id. at 4.
Reyes raises several state law claims and seeks relief under a provision of the Internal Revenue Code providing for interest and real property tax deductions, 26 U.S.C. § 163. The defendants move to dismiss Reyes' complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 1, ECF No. 7-1). The court finds oral argument unnecessary to resolve the issues. See Local R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). The defendants' motion will be granted for the following reasons.1
Reyes' only purported federal claim is Count I, which seeks a declaratory judgment that Reyes alone is eligible for certain property-related tax deductions under 26 U.S.C. § 163. "Congress has barred federal courts from giving declaratory judgments in tax matters." Handeland v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 519 F.2d 327, 329 (9th Cir. 1975); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). Section 2201(a) provides, with limited exceptions not applicable here, that a federal court's power to issue declaratory judgments does not extend to cases involving federal taxes.
Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist if the claim is "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida Cty., 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). Here, the plaintiff's only federal claim is completely devoid of merit: this court cannot provide the relief she seeks. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count I, and Reyes' claim will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).2
"[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Accordingly, the remaining state law claims in the amended complaint also will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
A separate order follows.
