Richard Tritz v. United States
698 F. App'x 342
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Richard J. Tritz and Irene C. Tritz (taxpayers) sued over the IRS’s tax collection conduct; their pro se appeal challenges the district court’s dismissal.
- The district court dismissed the action for failure to state timely claims and for inadequate pleadings on FOIA and APA grounds.
- Taxpayers argued their cause of action accrued on May 27, 2014, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a prior case.
- The government moved to dismiss under Federal Rules and statutory limits on suits against the United States (statute of limitations, Anti‑Injunction Act, APA limits).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal on multiple independent grounds (statute of limitations, APA/Anti‑Injunction Act bar, and insufficient FOIA allegations).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 | Tritz: accrual occurred when Supreme Court denied certiorari (May 27, 2014) | Gov: action accrued earlier; suit not filed within 2 years of accrual | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; suit untimely under § 7433(d)(3) |
| Accrual standard for § 7433 actions | Tritz: later accrual date tied to prior case outcome | Gov: accrual when taxpayer had reasonable opportunity to discover essential elements | Court rejects Tritz’s accrual date; applies reasonable‑opportunity accrual rule |
| APA as basis for monetary or injunctive relief | Tritz: seeks review of collection actions under APA | Gov: APA does not authorize money damages; injunction barred by Anti‑Injunction Act | APA claim fails (no money damages); any injunction barred by Anti‑Injunction Act |
| FOIA claim sufficiency | Tritz: contends FOIA violation | Gov: plaintiffs failed to specify requested records or allege FOIA elements | FOIA claim dismissed for failure to plead required facts plausibly |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard: de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal and liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2008) (appellate affirmation may be based on any ground supported by the record)
- United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596 (1990) (statute of limitations is a term of the government’s consent to be sued)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal)