1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEVEN NEUNZIG, Case No. 5:23-cv-04541-PCP

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: Dkt. No. 21 Defendant. 11

12 Pro se plaintiff Steven Neunzig brings this action against the government seeking recovery 13 of an allegedly overpaid income tax. Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss the 14 suit as moot. Neunzig has not filed any opposition to the government’s motion. For the following 15 reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. 16 BACKGROUND 17 Neunzig filed this suit against the government under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 seeking to recover 18 an allegedly overpaid federal income tax. Dkt. No. 1. Specifically, Neunzig alleges that in tax year 19 2016 he overpaid his federal income tax by $9,055. He seeks to recover that amount plus any 20 applicable interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Id. 21 On February 14, 2024, the government offered to provide Neunzig with a $9,055 refund 22 and with interest accruing from the date he filed his refund claim. Dkt. No. 16. The government 23 notified Neunzig that its concession would not include attorney’s fees. Neunzig informed the 24 government that he would need to consult with someone before deciding whether to accept the 25 offer and stated that he sought $9,500, not $9,055. The parties agreed to continue their 26 discussions. 27 Over the following months, the government made several efforts to contact Neunzig by 1 that he intended to respond to its outreach. Dkt. No. 20. On May 24, the government filed a status 2 report with the Court stating that if it did not receive a substantive response from Neunzig by June 3 7, 2024, it would proceed to issue the refund check in the amount of $9,055 with interest accruing 4 from the date he filed his refund claim, and that it would move to dismiss his case as moot within 5 30 days of issuing the check. Id. 6 On July 30, 2024, the IRS issued Neunzig a refund in the amount of $9,055 plus interest, 7 totaling $11,050.47. On August 13, 2024, the government notified Neunzig that the check had 8 been delivered to his address and asked whether he would stipulate to dismiss the case. Neunzig 9 did not respond. 10 On October 3, 2024, the government moved to dismiss Neunzig’s claims as moot. Neunzig 11 has filed no response. 12 LEGAL STANDARD 13 Article III authorizes federal courts to decide cases or controversies only where parties 14 have a personal stake. At the outset of litigation, plaintiffs must establish that they have standing 15 by showing: (1) that they “suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or 16 imminent”; (2) “that the injury was likely caused by the defendant”; and (3) “that the injury would 17 likely be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). 18 The “controversy must exist ... through all stages of the litigation.” Already, LLC v. Nike, 19 Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90–91 (2013) (cleaned up). “A case becomes moot ... when the issues presented 20 are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” id. at 91,—in 21 other words, when the “court finds that it can no longer provide a plaintiff with any effectual 22 relief,” Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 792, 796 (2021). But “[a]s long as the parties have a 23 concrete interest, however small, in the outcome..., the case is not moot.” Knox v. SEIU Loc. 1000, 24 567 U.S. 298, 307–08 (2012). 25 Plaintiffs must establish standing at the start, but once a case is underway the burden flips 26 to the party asserting mootness to “establish[ ] that there is no effective relief that the court can 27 provide.” Forest Guardians v. Johanns, 450 F.3d 455, 461 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 ANALYSIS 2 There is no remaining case or controversy here. The government has conceded that 3 Neunzig was entitled to repayment of his overpaid taxes for 2016 and has issued him a check in 4 || the amount for which he sought repayment in his complaint. Neunzig has not opposed the 5 government’s motion to dismiss or contended that he will refrain from depositing the check. 6 || Further, Neunzig is not entitled to attorney’s fees in this action because he is representing himself. 7 See Corrigan v. United States, 27 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1994). Nor is he entitled to costs. Under 8 26 U.S.C. § 7430(c)(4)(B)(), the government is not liable for costs if its position is substantially 9 || justified, and its position is substantially justified where it concedes the relief sought before its 10 answer. Pac. Fisheries Inc. v. United States, 484 F.3d 1103, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2007). 11 The record before the Court thus shows that there is no effectual relief that the Court can 12 || provide to Neunzig. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the government’s motion to dismiss. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 12, 2024 My o 18 P. Casey Pit 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28