Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04964/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04964-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Docket No. 52.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 TREASURY DEPARTMENT ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-04964 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE

TO STATE CLAIM AND FOR

INSUFFICIENT PROCESS, AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION 

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant Visa U.S.A.’s (“Defendant” or “Visa”) Motion to Dismiss for

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Insufficient Process and Service; and Failure to State Claim

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6).1 Pro Se Plaintiff

Robert Curtis (“Plaintiff”) opposes Visa’s motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; GRANTS Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for

Insufficient Process and Service; and DENIES Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Jurisdiction. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As best the Court can discern, pro se Plaintiff’s operative complaint arises from the alleged

procedures used to satisfy a debt owed by the Plaintiff to the Portland Veterans Hospital. 

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Pro se Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged that on November 22, 2004, he received notice from the Department

of Treasury (“DOT”) that he owed the Portland Veterans Hospital $600.44 for pharmacy charges after his quadruple bypass

surgery. The DOT intended on collecting the debt by intercepting any federal payments made to him in accordance with the

Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”). 

Pro se Plaintiff alleged that from October 15, 2004 until December 12, 2004, he was employed by the Small

Business Administration as a Loss Verifier. During this time, he received travel advances in the form of travel vouchers

deposited directly into a government issued Visa account in Plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff alleged that the DOT intercepted the

total amount owed to the Portland Veterans Hospital ($600.44) from travel vouchers that were deposited into his Visa

account. Plaintiff alleges that this action resulted in a violation of the TOP. According to the original complaint, because

Plaintiff’s travel advance was used to offset his debt to the Portland Veterans Hospital, he was held responsible for travel

costs accrued during his employment with the Small Business Administration. Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to pay

such amount and not subsequently rehired. Plaintiff’s original complaint stated that in June, 2005, he contacted the Small

Business Administration via telephone in attempt to resolve the issue. Further, Plaintiff alleged that on November 22, 2005,

he was notified that the DOT had intercepted his year 2003 Federal Tax Return for eighty-one dollars. Plaintiff alleged this

interception was also a violation of the TOP. Plaintiff sought relief for $10,000,730.23 alleging that the government’s

conduct was fraudulent in satisfying Plaintiff’s debt to the Portland Veterans Hospital. 

2

On December 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed the original complaint.2 On February 7, 2007, this

Court granted the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a

claim and granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. On March 2, 2007, Plaintiff filed

the Amended Complaint. 

Pro se Plaintiff’s Amended complaint is entitled, “Amended Complaint in Federal Fraud

Against Robert Curtis.” In his Amended Complaint, pro se Plaintiff complains of “fraud” and “Lost

[sic] of Money, Slander, Discrimination, Lost [sic] of Credit, Lost [sic] of Income, Lost [sic] of Auto

Insurance, Lost [sic] of Drivers [sic] License, Degradation with Starvation and Death just around the

corner.” (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ V.1, VI.7.) In addition to Visa, Plaintiff names the

United States, Treasury Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans Administration, the

Department of Homeland Security, and four individuals employed by these agencies (collectively

“Federal Defendants”), as additional Defendants in this action. 

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Claim

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal

sufficiency of a claim. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the focus of a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion is on the legal sufficiency, rather than the substantive merits of a claim, the

Court ordinarily limits its review to the face of the complaint. See Van Buskirk v. Cable News

Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally, dismissal is proper only when the

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable legal theory or failed to allege sufficient facts under a

cognizable legal theory. See SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d

780, 782 (9th Cir. 1996); Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988);

Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, dismissal is

appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of

a claim. See Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1990). In considering a Rule

12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s material allegations in the complaint as true and

construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d

428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. Motion to Dismiss for Defects in Process and Service

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if service of process is not accomplished within

120 days of the filing of the complaint, the district court in its discretion may either dismiss the

action without prejudice or order service within a specified time. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m) (emphasis

added). However, if the plaintiff can show “good cause” for an extension, the district court must

extend the time for accomplishing service. Id. (emphasis added). Tyson v. City of Sunnyvale, 159

F.R.D. 528, 530 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Where the validity of service is contested by Rule 12 motion, the

burden is on plaintiff (the party claiming proper service has been effected) to establish the validity of

service. William R. Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial, § 9:148 (2006) (citing

Norlock v. City of Garland, 768 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir. 1985); Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v.

Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F2d 476, 488 (3rd Cir. 1993)).

III. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a claim for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, the Court

presumes lack of jurisdiction, and the party seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden

of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). A party challenging the court’s jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may do so by

raising either a facial attack or a factual attack. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

2000). 

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

A facial attack is one where “the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction, the Court

must accept the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d

1156, 1157 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2001). For a factual attack, in contrast, the Court may consider extrinsic

evidence. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, the court does

not have to assume the truthfulness of the allegations, and may resolve any factual disputes. See

White, 227 F.3d at 1242. Thus, “[o]nce the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a

factual motion by presenting affidavits or evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the

motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction. Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir.

2003). 

ANALYSIS

In the current motion, Visa contends: (1) Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claim for

relief against Visa; (2) The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to

state a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”); and (3) Plaintiff

has failed to timely serve the complaint and summons within the statutorily-prescribed period. In his

Opposition, pro se Plaintiff does not substantively respond to Visa’s arguments. The Court

addresses Visa’s arguments in turn. 

As to Visa’s first argument, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable

claim against Visa. Nowhere in the FAC, does Plaintiff allege any wrongdoing by Visa. The FAC

refers to Visa in seven instances. (FAC at ¶. 1:13-14; 3:5-10; 6:3-6; 6:4.) In each of those instances,

Plaintiff refers to Visa as a means of identifying the particular credit card or bank account at issue,

but attributes no improper to Visa. For this reason, the Court GRANTS Visa’s Motion to Dismiss

for Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 

As to Visa’s second argument, Visa maintains that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the United States under the FTCA. As a

jurisdictional prerequisite for suits against the United States, the FTCA requires the claimant to first

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

28 U.S.C.A section 2675 states in relevant part:

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money

damages for injury or loss of property...unless claimant shall have first presented their

claim to the appropriate Federal Agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by

the agency. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2675(a).

4

Docket No. 1.

5

Docket No. 48.

5

file the an administrative claim with the appropriate agency. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.

106 (1993) (stating that the FTCA bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have

exhausted their administrative remedies); Warren v. United States Dep’t of Interior Bureau of Land

Management, 724 F.2d 776,778 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc) (noting that section 2675(a) requires a

claimant to file “a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin

its own investigation, and . . . a sum certain damages claim.”)3 In this case however, because Visa is

not the United States, Plaintiff’s potential claims against Visa need not comply with the

requirements of the FTCA. Accordingly, the Court finds Visa’s jurisdictional argument

unconvincing and DENIES Visa’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent it is based on Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction. 

Finally, as to Visa’s third argument, the record reveals that Plaintiff’s service was untimely. 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 1, 20054, and did not serve Visa until February 27, 20075

– more than one year after the filing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s service of the Complaint exceeded the

120-day period for service under Rule 4(m). For this reason, the Court GRANTS Visa’s Motion to

Dismiss for Insufficient Process and Service.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State

a Claim; GRANTS Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Process and Service; and DENIES

Visa’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from

the entry of this Order file an amended complaint and to properly allege his claims, if any, against

Visa. The hearing in this matter set for April 24, 2007 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04964-MMC Document 59 Filed 04/23/07 Page 6 of 6