United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]
JOHN
H. ENGLAND, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
These
consolidated actions, both of which were removed from the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, (see Shepler
v. Hendricks, No. 2:18-01429-JHE
(“Shepler”), doc. 1; Dominion
Resources LLC v. Hendricks, et al., No. 2:18-01580-JHE,
doc. 1 (“Dominion”)), relate to a May
20, 2014 tax sale of real property by the Tax Collector of
Jefferson County, Alabama (“Jefferson County”).
Defendants Gaynell Hendricks (“Hendricks, ” who
is the Tax Assessor of Jefferson County) and Jefferson County
(collectively with Hendricks, the “Moving
Defendants”) have moved to dismiss both actions under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), contending each is time-barred.
(Shepler, doc. 5; Dominion, doc. 15).
Plaintiffs in each case oppose dismissal. (Shepler,
doc. 11; Dominion, doc. 20). The Moving Defendants
have filed a reply in support of their motion in
Shepler.[2] (See Id. at doc. 12). For the reasons
discussed further below, the motions, (Shepler, doc.
5; Dominion, doc. 15), are DENIED.
I.
Standard of Review
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it
demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). Mere
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” are
insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at
1949 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertions]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
Additionally, “[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting
fraud or mistake.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b).
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint states a
facially plausible claim for relief “when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted).
The complaint must establish “more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. at
1965 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.”).
Ultimately, this inquiry is a “context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
The
court accepts all factual allegations as true on a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Grossman v.
Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000).
However, legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations
are not entitled to that assumption of truth. Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1950.
II.
Background
A.
Factual Allegations[3]
On or
about May 20, 2014, the Jefferson County Tax Collector sold a
number of parcels of real property due to unpaid taxes levied
by Jefferson County. (Shepler, doc. 1-1 at 2 (¶
8); Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 3 (¶ 9)). Plaintiff
Tim Shepler (“Shepler”) bought one of these
parcels (Parcel Id. 28-00-18-1-014-077.336,
“Parcel 1”) and received a tax sale certificate
the same day. (Shepler, doc. 1-1 at 2 (¶¶
8, 10)). Nonparty Austin Mann (“Mann”) purchased
two parcels (Parcel I.D. 28-00-18-1-014-007.331,
“Parcel 2, ” and Parcel I.D.
28-00-18-1-014-007.347, “Parcel 2”) at the sale
and received tax sale certificates for them.
(Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 3 (¶¶ 9-10)).
Plaintiff Dominion Resources, LLC (“Dominion”)
bought one parcel (Parcel I.D. 28-00-19-1-002-003.342,
“Parcel 4”) at the sale and received a tax sale
certificate for it. (Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 3-4
(¶¶ 9, 13)).
On
September 6, 2017, the Judge of Probate of Jefferson County
issued tax deeds to Shepler and Dominion for the parcels they
had purchased. (Shepler, doc. 1-1 at ¶ 11;
Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 4 (¶ 14)). On September
11, 2017, the probate judge issued tax deeds to Mann for
Parcels 2 and 3. (Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 3 (¶
11)). Mann later conveyed those parcels to Dominion by
quitclaim deed. (Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 3 (¶
12)).
On or
about July 13, 2018, Shepler received a notice from the
Jefferson County Tax Assessor dated June 21, 2018, indicating
Parcel 1 had been mistakenly sold at the tax sale.
(Shepler, doc. 1-1 at 2 (¶ 12); doc. 1-4 at 2).
The notice stated “Due to the assessment error this
parcel [sic] exemptions were removed. This parcel was
exemption [sic] and should not have sold. The tax sale is
invalid.” (Id., doc. 1-4 at 2). Enclosed with
the notice was an “Application for Refund by Petition
of Taxes Paid by Mistake or Error” pursuant to Act
89-861. (Id. at 1-1, 2 (¶ 13); doc. 1-4 at 3).
On or about July 18, 2018, Dominion received similar notices
for Parcels 2, 3, and 4, accompanied by identical petitions.
(Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 4 (¶¶ 15-16),
32-37).
B.
Procedural History
On
August 6, 2018, Shepler filed an action in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama. (Shepler, doc. 1-1).
Four days later, Dominion filed its own action in the same
court. (Dominion, doc. 1-1 at 2-7). Defendant Ben
Carson removed Shepler to this court on September 4,
2018, (Shepler, doc. 1-1), and removed
Dominion on September 26, 2018, (Dominion,
doc. 1). On April 5, 2019, the undersigned consolidated the
actions. (Shepler, doc. 33).
III.
...