Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kigre v. Town of Hilton Head Island Motion to Dismiss

Kigre v. Town of Hilton Head Island Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,061|Likes:
The Town of Hilton Head Island's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Kigre Inc. against the town on June 28, 2013.
The Town of Hilton Head Island's motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Kigre Inc. against the town on June 28, 2013.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Island Packet and Beaufort Gazette on Sep 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINABEAUFORT DIVISION
KIGRE, INC.,Plaintiff,vs.TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND,Defendant.)))))))))CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 9:13-cv-1776-SBNotice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss ____________________________________)
COMES now the Defendant herein, the Town of Hilton Head Island (hereinafter referred
to as “Defendant”), and moves on this day for an Or 
der dismissing the present case pursuant tothe basis set forth below a
nd as further discussed in Defendant’s Memorandum submitted
of aneven date herewith.
The claims of the Plaintiff herein, Kigre, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), relate
to the constitutionality and exercise of 
Defendant’s
taxing authority. Respectfully, this Courtlacks the ability to hear the above-captioned matter filed by Plaintiff for several reasons:I.
 
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because:a.
 
This matter has already been tried to finality in the state court system of the Stateof South Carolina, Plaintiff should be denied its attempt to re-litigate the sameissues as the state court heard, and all relief sought herein is barred by res judicata;i.
 
Under the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2012), thisCourt should give full faith and credit to the final judgment of the State of South Carolina court system;
9:13-cv-01776-SB Date Filed 07/22/13 Entry Number 9 Page 1 of 3
 
Page 2 of 3
 b.
 
Plaintiff should be collaterally estopped from arguing the same points of law andseeking a different determination on any pertinent facts as litigated in the statecourt action;i.
 
Under the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2012), thisCourt should give full faith and credit to the final judgment of the State of South Carolina court system;c.
 
The claims solely at issue in this case relate to the taxing authority of a politicalsubdivision of the State of South Carolina and, as such, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 bars this
Court’s inquiry into a state tax matter;
 i.
 
Declaratory judgments are not available in state tax matters;d.
 
This Court must abstain from hearing the matter under the
 Rooker-Feldman
 doctrine because it is, at its core, a challenge to a final state court judgment infederal court;e.
 
This Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is notclearly articulated and all parties hereto are residents of the State of SouthCarolina; andf.
 
This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from a state court;II.
 
All necessary parties are not made a part of this suit
as a challenge to Defendant’s taxing
authority is a challenge to South Carolina law and the Municipal Association of South
Carolina’s
Standard Industrial Classification establishing the tax rates Defendant chargesPlaintiff;III.
 
Plaintiff has failed to state grounds upon which relief may be granted because:a.
 
Unjust enrichment is not a cause of action for collection of taxes; and
9:13-cv-01776-SB Date Filed 07/22/13 Entry Number 9 Page 2 of 3
 
Page 3 of 3
 b.
 
 Negligence and conversion actions are barred by the South Carolina Tort ClaimsAct, S.C. Code Ann. 15-78-10,
et seq.
(2012) as they relate to levying andcollection of taxes, lawmaking, quasi-judicial action, and licensing powers;IV.
 
Federal declaratory judgments are not available in state tax matter; andV.
 
Plaintiff has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 in failing to file a disclosurestatement.For all of these reasons, this Court must dismiss the present matter. By way of a succinctsummary, Plaintiff is challenging the taxing structure of Defendant after a South Carolina courthas already ruled on such matter. Not only are declaratory judgments not available in suchmatters, but suit lawsuit runs afoul of strong federal precedent relating to the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear state tax matters and matters already decided by a state court. Specifically,this case is a
de facto
appeal of a state court judgment, and this Court lacks the authority to hear such matter. Therefore, this Court must dismiss this matter.Defendant is not required to consult with opposing counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because this is a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motion to dismiss.Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of July, 2013.
ALFORD LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
 By: /s/Gregory M. AlfordGregory M. Alford (Attorney ID 6327)Post Office Drawer 8008Hilton Head Island, SC 29938(843) 842-5500 (843) 842-8400 (fax)gregg@alfordlawsc.com 
Attorneys for Defendant, Town of Hilton Head Island 
 
9:13-cv-01776-SB Date Filed 07/22/13 Entry Number 9 Page 3 of 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->