Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00948/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14), to which 

Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 19) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 20). On July 1, 

2014, this case was assigned to this Court. (Doc. 21.) 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 

923(f)(3). (Doc. 1.) In a brief one-paragraph summary, Plaintiff first alleges that “[t]he 

ATF has ruled to revoke Lancaster Consulting Firearms License based on ‘willful’ 

violations concerning firearm entries and omissions.” (Id.) Further, Plaintiff explains that 

he suffered severe financial loss because Defendant failed to take action against a 

competitor’s illegal importation of guns despite the fact that Plaintiff reported the 

violations to Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s lack of action resulted in 

loss of personnel and caused the Plaintiff to be unable to address required firearm entries 

for accuracy. (Id.) Plaintiff demands that the decision to revoke his firearms license be 

overturned in light of the “mitigating circumstance brought about by the negligent actions 

Chester George Durda, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-13-00948-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:13-cv-00948-SPL Document 22 Filed 07/28/14 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

of the ATF Import Division.” (Id.) He also requests that he be compensated for the “presold business lost due to the ATF Import Divisions’ failure to act in a timely manner.” 

(Id.) 

 In its motion to dismiss, Defendant contends that Plaintiff raises two claims for 

relief. (Doc. 14 at 1-2.) With regard to Plaintiff’s first claim under 18 U.S.C. § 

923(f)(3), Defendant concedes that this claim is properly brought. (Id.) However, 

Defendant asks this Court to dismiss the second of Plaintiff’s claims, which it interprets 

as arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 14.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “The district courts of the United States... are ‘courts of limited jurisdiction. They 

possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. 

Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Thus, if the court determines that it lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, it may dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Safe Air for Everyone 

v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may 

seek dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be based on either (1) the lack of a cognizable 

legal theory or (2) insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. Conservation 

Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, Blasquez v. Salazar, 

132 S. Ct. 1762 (2012); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 

III. DISCUSSION

 In this case, the Court finds, and Defendant does not dispute, that Plaintiff has 

stated a claim for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 923(f). Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the 

Attorney General may revoke a firearms license issued under the Act if “the holder of 

Case 2:13-cv-00948-SPL Document 22 Filed 07/28/14 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

such license has willfully violated” any provision of the Act or related regulations. 18 

U.S.C. § 923(e); see also General Store, Inc. v. Van Loan, 560 F.3d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 

2009). If the Attorney General revokes a license, he shall, upon request of the aggrieved 

party, promptly hold a hearing to review his denial or revocation. 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(2). 

If after such hearing, the Attorney General does not reverse the decision to revoke a 

license, the aggrieved party may at any time within sixty days of the Attorney General’s 

decision file a petition with the United States district court for a de novo judicial review 

of the revocation.1

 18 U.S.C. 923(f)(3). 

 However, contrary to Defendant’s construction, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 

brought only one claim for relief. It is evident that Plaintiff solely intended to petition for 

review of his firearms license revocation due to the title he assigned his Complaint, the 

citation to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3) as the jurisdictional basis for these proceedings, and the 

content of his complaint and demand. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Although Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant failed to act on reports of a competitor’s illegal importation of guns, which he 

characterizes as “negligent,” Plaintiff does not cite to the FTCA or distinctly bring a 

second cause of action against Defendant on those grounds. (Id.) Instead, Plaintiff 

appears to provide a description of Defendant’s actions, from his perspective, to explain 

why he believes the revocation of his firearms license was unwarranted. For instance, 

Plaintiff first explains that his license was revoked due to violations concerning firearm 

entries and omissions. (Id.) He then expressly attributes Defendant’s failure to act on 

reports of a competitor’s violations to his inability to “address required firearm entries for 

accuracy,” the previously cited cause for his license revocation. (Id.) 

 Further, in his demand, Plaintiff requests that the license revocation “be reviewed 

and overturned in light of mitigating circumstance brought about by the negligent actions 

 1

 It is unclear whether Plaintiff has complied with the sixty (60) day statutory filing deadline. Although Plaintiff indicates in his response to Defendant’s motion that “[t]here 

was a subsequent appeal hearing that found that the revocation would stay in effect,” he has not yet provided proof as to when the hearing occurred or when he received notice of the Attorney General’s final decision. (Doc. 19 at 3.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00948-SPL Document 22 Filed 07/28/14 Page 3 of 4
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 

of the ATF Import Division.”2 (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff identifies Defendant’s 

“negligent actions” as “mitigating circumstances,” indicating that he may wish to present 

these facts to the court as a defense, not bring a separate claim on that basis. (Id.) 

 Finally, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion is revealing. Plaintiff explains 

in his response that Defendant’s actions caused harm to his business resulting in “some 

missing and inaccurate serial number entries” at the time of Defendant’s investigation. 

(Doc. 19 at 3.) Notably, he concludes by stating, “The general condition of the company 

at the time of the examination is a factor in the loss of the License and must be 

reconsidered.” (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff appears to argue that Defendant’s actions 

contributed to the poor condition of his business which, in turn, resulted in the revocation 

of his license. It does not appear to the Court that Plaintiff intended to bring a separate 

claim against Defendant for any tort under the FTCA or any other provision of law. 

 Because Plaintiff has not brought a FTCA claim, the Court need not determine 

whether it should be dismissed. Consequently, finding Plaintiff has stated a claim for 

relief for judicial review of the revocation of his firearms license under 18 U.S.C. § 

923(f)(3), the Court calls for Defendant to answer the Complaint. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is 

denied. 

 Dated this 28th day of July, 2014.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 2

 To the extent Plaintiff also requests monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 923, he fails to cite to any authority that would entitle him to such relief. 

Case 2:13-cv-00948-SPL Document 22 Filed 07/28/14 Page 4 of 4