Source: http://wi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180308_0000313.EWI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:22:40+00:00

Document:
FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN et al., Defendants.
United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC) sues the city of Waukesha's Fire Department, Waukesha's Police Department, and Thomas Brandon, the acting director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives alleging that they have infringed on its obligation to investigate an insurance claim. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss under Fed. Civ. P. R. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons explained below, the motions will be granted.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only decide cases the Constitution and Congress authorize. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citation omitted). Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern challenges to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. “Under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff's favor. . . .” Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2015). However, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to show that jurisdiction is proper. Travelers Prop. Cas. v. Good, 689 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citation omitted).
In this case, Defendants argue that sovereign immunity precludes USLIC from bringing a lawsuit against them without a clear statement from the government waiving immunity. The United States, which includes federal agencies, “may not be sued without its consent” and “the consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Government waivers of immunity must be expressed clearly in a statute and “are not implied and are construed narrowly against the plaintiff.” Gessert v. United States, 703 F.3d 1028, 1033 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957)). To maintain a claim against the United States in federal court, a plaintiff must (1) identify a federal statute that “confers subject matter jurisdiction on the district court” and (2) identify a statute that “waives sovereign immunity of the United States to the cause of action.” Macklin v. United States, 300 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2002). “Failure to satisfy either requirement mandates the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.” Id.
Again, to establish jurisdiction, USLIC must identify a statute that confers subject matter jurisdiction and a statute of the government clearly waiving sovereign immunity. Macklin, 300 F.3d at 819. USLIC's arguments for federal jurisdiction fail for several reasons. First, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, on which USLIC relies, is not an independent source of jurisdiction. Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing GNB Battery Technologies v. Gould, Inc., 65 F.3d 615, 619 (7th Cir. 1995)). The Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes a federal court “in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ” to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” It only provides an additional remedy once jurisdiction is independently established. Balanyi v. Local 1031, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers AFL-CIO, 374 F.2d 723, 726 (7th Cir. 1967). Therefore, the Declaratory Judgment Act cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction that does not otherwise exists in this case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2201
 v. 
 v. 
 v.