MEMORANDUM OPINION

KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Todd Gordon, a homeowner, filed a Petition to Strike Lien in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, stemming from a Notice of Federal Tax Lien ("NFTL") the IRS filed against him in 2005. Gordon alleges that Defendant United States of America (the "USA") improperly retains a judgment against his property in Clearfield County. The USA removed the action, then moved to dismiss, arguing that the case is moot and that sovereign immunity bars Gordon's action. The USA's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 2) is fully briefed (ECF Nos. 3, 4) and ripe for disposition.

The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS the case to the Court of Common Pleas.

II. Venue

Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because the USA removed the case from the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, which this district embraces. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Additionally, the USA may remove any action commenced against it in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).

III. Factual and Procedural Background1

This case arises from the Internal Revenue Service's ("IRS") filing of a NFTL against Gordon on September 6, 2005. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 1.) On the day of filing of the NFTL, the Court of Common Pleas entered judgment in favor of the USA, although the USA never sought judgment or further acted upon the liens; this may have been the result of a clerical error at the Court of Common Pleas. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6, 8; ECF No. 11.) The NFTL provides that, unless the IRS refiles the NFTL, after a certain period, usually ten years, the NFTL expires and becomes a certificate of release pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6325.2 (ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 2-4.) The IRS never refiled the NFTL and the lien expired in 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 10; ECF No. 3 ¶ 4.) Pursuant to Section 6325, the lien is now unenforceable. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 11.)

Sometime in 2019 — the date does not appear in the record — Gordon filed a Petition to Strike Lien, after which the Court of Common Pleas issued an order directing the USA to show cause. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) The Court of Common Pleas then struck the show cause order and on October 3, 2019, Gordon filed an Amended Petition, again requesting the Court of Common Pleas to strike the lien. (Id. 8-9.) On November 1, 2019, the USA removed the case to this Court. (ECF No. 1.)

On November 8, 2019, the USA moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 2.) Gordon responded in opposition on November 29, 2019. (ECF No. 4.)

IV. Legal Standard

Rule 12 provides that a party may move to dismiss a case on the basis that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). At issue in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is the court's "very power to hear the case." Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 (3d Cir. 2006). Consequently, a court must grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claimp. In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir. 2012). In evaluating such a motion, a court must first determine whether the movant presents a facial or factual challenge. Id. A facial attack argues that the allegations contained in a claim are, on their face, insufficient to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction; in contrast, a factual attack contends that there can be no subject matter jurisdiction because the facts of the case do not support it. GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29, 35 (3d Cir. 2018). By way of example, in a factual challenge, a complaint might properly allege diversity of citizenship, but the defendant can submit proof to show that the court lacks jurisdiction. Id. Once the defendant raises a factual challenge to jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Id.

V. Discussion

A. The Parties' Arguments

The USA mounts a factual challenge to this Court's jurisdiction, arguing that it lacks jurisdiction because: (1) the case is moot; and (2) sovereign immunity bars the suit.3

The USA argues that the case is moot4 because the NFTL no longer operates as a lien on Gordon's property; rather, it is, by its terms, a certificate of release. (ECF No. 3 at 3-4.) Gordon's petition seeks to strike the NFTL, but all parties agree that the NFTL is no longer active, and therefore there is no active controversy over which this Court has jurisdiction. (Id.)

Gordon responds that there remains an active controversy in this case because the judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas remains on the docket and that docket indicates that the case remains open. (ECF No. 4 at 5.) Because there is an active controversy, the Court should deny the Motion to Dismiss and remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas. (Id.)

B. The Case Is Moot and the Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over an action, there must be a "case" or "controversy." See U.S. Const. Art. III. When a case becomes moot, there is no longer a case or controversy, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction. A case becomes moot when there are no longer live issues in the case or when the parties no longer possess cognizable interests in the outcome. Utd. Steel Paper & Forestry Rubber Mfg. Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Virgin Islands, 842 F.3d 201, 208 (3d Cir. 2016). The central question in this inquiry is whether the circumstances of the litigation have changed so as to render relief meaningless. Id.

A case may be rendered moot where the defendant has granted the plaintiff the relief sought by complying with the plaintiff's request. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). In such circumstances, a case may become moot if succeeding events make it "absolutely clear" that there is no reasonable expectation that the complained-of behavior will recur. Id.

Here, this case is moot because there are no longer live issues before this Court and it is unable to effectively render relief. The USA has also granted Gordon the relief he seeks to the extent that it can. The Parties agree that the NFTL is no longer in force, and that it operates solely as certificate of release of the original lien. (See ECF No. 3 at 3-4.) The only dispute remaining in this case is the outstanding judgment against Gordon, filed in error by either the Court of Common Pleas or the Prothonotary of Clearfield County. This Court is unable to order either entity to remove that judgment and therefore cannot afford effective relief in this action and there is therefore no case or controversy in this action.5

C. The Court Remands the Case To The Court of Common Pleas

In cases removed from state courts, a motion to remand generally must be made within thirty days of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). However, if a district court determines, at any time prior to final judgment, that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand the action to state court. Id.

With no case or controversy before it, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will accordingly remand the case to the Clearfield County Court of Common Pleas.6

VI. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Motion and remands the action to the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County.

A corresponding order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2020, upon consideration of the USA's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 2), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County.