Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01679/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01679-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYCURGAN INC. DBA 

ARES ARMOR,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-CV-1679 JLS (BGS)

ORDER DENYING

EMERGENCY APPLICATION

FOR AN ORDER FOR

EXPEDITED RULE 34

INSPECTION AND TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

AND RELATED FILING

DEADLINES

(ECF No. 8)

vs.

B. TODD JONES in his official

capacity as Head of the San Diego

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

and Explosives; and DOES 1–10,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Lycurgan, Inc’s (“Plaintiff”) Emergency

Application for an Order for Expedited Rule 34 Inspection and to Continue Hearing

Date and Related Filing Deadlines (“Emergency Application”). (ECF No. 8.) Also

before the Court is Defendant’s Response in Opposition to (ECF No. 9.) and Plaintiff’s

Reply in Support of (ECF No. 10.) the Emergency Application. Having considered the

parties’ arguments and the law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Emergency Application.

BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking the return of items

seized during a search of its property pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform

- 1 - 14cv1679

Case 3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS Document 11 Filed 10/22/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Act (“CAFRA”). 18 U.S.C. §983. (ECF No. 1.) On September 22, 2014, Defendant

filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (“MTD”). (ECF No. 7.) Defendant’s MTD

is pending before the Court. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

challenges a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction that “may not grant relief absent a constitutional or valid

statutory grant of jurisdiction” and are “presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular

case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” A–Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141,

1145 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). 

Rule 12(b)(1) motions may challenge jurisdiction facially or factually. Safe

Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In a facial attack,

the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient

on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the

challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise

invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be

considered a factual attack when the attack relies on extrinsic evidence, as opposed

to the pleadings alone, to contest the truth of the allegations. See id.

When there is a factual attack the Court may look beyond the Complaint to

affidavits and other evidence submitted by the parties in order to evaluate the Rule

12(b)(1) motion. Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch. 343 F.3d 1036. Accordingly,

in response to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion based on a factual attack, the non-moving

party may be entitled to discovery related to the jurisdictional question. See Laub v.

U.S. Dept. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). Discovery should be

granted “when . . . jurisdictional facts are contested or more facts are needed” to

determine a question of jurisdiction. Id. However, “when it is clear that . . .

discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for

- 2 - 14cv1679

Case 3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS Document 11 Filed 10/22/14 Page 2 of 4
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

jurisdiction,” a Court need not grant a discovery request prior to ruling on a Rule

12(b)(1) motion. America W. Airlines, Inc. v. GPA Group, Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801

(quoting Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 556 F.2d 406, 431, n. 24).

Discovery at the outset of a case should be limited to jurisdictional matters. U.S.

Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 79–80

(1988). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests discovery before responding to Defendant’s MTD pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d), which allows a party to seek discovery

prior to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) conference upon a court order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). (Emergency Application 7 , ECF No. 8-1.) Plaintiff suggests

1

that it is entitled to seek discovery from Defendant at this time because Defendant’s

MTD is a factual attack based on extrinsic evidence. (Reply in Support of MTD

2–4, ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff argues that the declarations of two special agents

attached as exhibits to Defendant’s MTD are extrinsic evidence that turn the Rule

12(b)(1) motion into a factual attack challenging this Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. (Id.)

While the declarations attached to Defendant’s MTD are extrinsic evidence,

they are not used as a basis for Defendant’s jurisdictional challenge. Only when

extrinsic evidence is relied upon to form the basis of a challenge to subject matter

jurisdiction does a facial attack become a factual attack. See Safe Air for Everyone

v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). The mere inclusion of extrinsic

evidence, here the declarations of two agents cited to in the Statement of Facts

section of Defendant’s MTD, does not turn a facial attack into a factual attack. 

Furthermore, even if Defendant’s MTD was construed as a factual attack

based on the inclusion of the agents’ declarations, discovery related to whether the

lower receivers seized during the execution of the search warrant are firearms would

For ease of reference, the page numbers cited to are the ECF page numbers. 1

- 3 - 14cv1679

Case 3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS Document 11 Filed 10/22/14 Page 3 of 4
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

not help resolve the jurisdictional issue raised in Defendant’s MTD. In Defendant’s

MTD, he does not argue that this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction turns on

whether the lower receivers are considered firearms. (MTD 4, ECF No. 7.) Instead,

Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the lower

receivers were not seized in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding. (Id.) At this

early stage in the case, prior to a 26(f) conference, discovery by court order is only

appropriate to resolve issues of jurisdiction. See U.S. Catholic Conference v.

Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 79–80 (1988). Here, granting

Plaintiff’s discovery request would not assist in determining this Court’s

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Emergency

Application for an Order for Expedited Rule 34 Inspection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2014

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv1679

Case 3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS Document 11 Filed 10/22/14 Page 4 of 4