Shahid Rana v. Mary Schneider
679 F. App'x 580
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Shahid and Sabina Rana (pro se) sued asserting federal and state claims arising from the Arizona Department of Revenue’s tax collection and levy efforts.
- The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the Ranas appealed.
- Federal claims included constitutional challenges to the tax collection and a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
- State-law tort/contract claims were also asserted against the State/Department of Revenue.
- The district court found the Tax Injunction Act barred the federal suit, the FCRA claim insufficiently pleaded, and the state claims barred for failure to comply with Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reviewing jurisdictional and 12(b)(6) dismissals de novo and declining to consider arguments or documents not raised below or in the opening brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction over constitutional/state-tax challenges | Ranas sought federal relief against state tax collection | State invoked the Tax Injunction Act and state remedies | Held: No jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act; state remedies adequate |
| Whether Ranas stated a claim under the FCRA | Ranas alleged credit-reporting violations from tax collection actions | State argued complaint lacked factual allegations meeting FCRA elements | Held: Dismissed for failure to plead plausible FCRA claim under Iqbal/Twombly |
| Whether Ranas’ state-law claims may proceed despite notice statute noncompliance | Ranas asserted state-law claims without providing statutory notice with a specific settlement amount | State argued strict compliance with Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute is required | Held: State claims barred for failure to file a §12-821.01(A) notice stating a specific amount |
| Whether appellate court may consider new arguments or documents | Ranas raised additional arguments/documents on appeal | State argued appellate review limited to district record and opening brief arguments | Held: Court refused to consider matters not raised below or in the opening brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO Local 2152 v. Principi, 464 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
- Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellate affirmance may be based on any record-supported ground)
- Comenout v. Washington, 722 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1983) (Tax Injunction Act bars federal suits challenging state tax assessments)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements and pleading standards for claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b))
- Deer Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490 (Ariz. 2007) (requires strict compliance with Arizona's notice-of-claim statute)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised in opening brief)
- United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990) (documents not presented to the district court are not part of the appellate record)