ERIC L. GILBERT; AUDRA GILBERT, husband and wife v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHILIP K. LEOPARD, as Trustee of Namaca Management Limited

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC L. GILBERT; AUDRA GILBERT,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PHILIP
K. LEOPARD, as Trustee of Namaca
Management Limited,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17004
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03762-JJT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 3, 2021
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: W. FLETCHER, MILLER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Eric and Audra Gilbert appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint
against Defendants-Appellees Philip K. Leopard, as trustee of Namaca Management
Limited (Namaca), and the United States. The Gilberts bring quiet title and
interpleader claims against both defendants and breach of contract, declaratory
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAY 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
judgment,1 and wrongful recording claims against Namaca. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review dismissals for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction de novo. Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir. 1995). We also
review whether the United States waived its sovereign immunity de novo. Orff v.
United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004), aff’d, 545 U.S. 596 (2005).
1. Quiet Title. Because the United States released all federal tax liens
placed on the Property, the Gilberts’ quiet title claim against both defendants is
moot; the Gilberts obtained the relief they sought and the court can no longer grant
any effectual relief in their favor.2 See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996)
(per curiam).
2. Interpleader. To the extent the Gilberts seek interpleader to resolve a
dispute over the since-released tax liens, this claim is moot. See Calderon, 158 U.S.
at 150. To the extent the Gilberts seek to resolve their withholding obligations owed
to the United States under FIRPTA and FDAP through interpleader, their claim fails
1The Gilberts’ claim for a declaration establishing that their withholding of
funds required under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA)
and the Fixed, Determinable, Annual, or Periodical income (FDAP) rules from their
agreed purchase price for the subject real property was not a breach of contract is
resolved in a contemporaneously filed opinion. Their remaining declaratory
judgment claims are resolved herein.
2 We take judicial notice of the release of the federal tax liens as matters of
public record, maintained by the Maricopa County Recorder. See Fed. R. Evid.
201(c)(1).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity. The United States
waives its sovereign immunity when it “claims a mortgage or other lien” on real or
personal property. 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a)(5). The United States has not asserted a lien
based on the Gilberts’ FIRPTA or FDAP withholding obligations. Thus, the Gilberts
cannot sue the United States, and their interpleader claim fails. See Dunn & Black,
P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007).
3. Breach of Contract. The Gilberts’ breach of contract claim is not ripe.
While they argue that Namaca breached the amended real estate contract by failing
to take “immediate and appropriate steps to have the title issues resolved as quickly
as possible,” any obligation created by this sentence is so vague and indefinite that
it is incapable of being performed. See C & T Land & Dev. Co. v. Bushnell, 470 P.2d
102, 103 (Ariz. 1970). But the additional phrase in the same provision that “title
issues shall be resolved prior to or at the time of final conveyance” is sufficiently
definite to enforce. Therefore, under the terms of the contract, Namaca was required
to deliver clear title to the Gilberts once they fulfilled their payment obligations. The
Gilberts, however, have not completed their payment obligations. Because a breach
of contract claim is premature until it becomes certain the contractual obligation will
not be honored, the Gilberts’ claim fails as not ripe. See Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94
F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 1996); Esplendido Apartments v. Olsson, 697 P.2d 1105,
1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
4. Declaratory Judgment. To the extent the Gilberts seek declaratory
relief related to the since-removed federal tax liens, this claim is moot. See Principal
Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 669 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The requirement that
a case or controversy exist under the Declaratory Judgment Act is identical to Article
III’s constitutional case or controversy requirement.”) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). And the remaining declarations that the Gilberts seek, which relate to their
breach of contract claim, fail because, as discussed above, they are not ripe. See id.
5. Wrongful Recording. Finally, the Gilberts’ wrongful recording claim
fails because “[o]ne must be an ‘owner’ or ‘beneficial title holder’ at the time of the
recording to assert a claim under [Ariz. Rev. Stat.] § 33–420(A).” SWC Baseline &
Crismon Inv’rs, L.L.C. v. Augusta Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 265 P.3d 1070, 1079 (Ariz.
Ct. App. 2011); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33–420(A). The recording at issue is the
Notice of Foreclosure recorded in December 2017. The Gilberts did not—and
cannot—allege that they owned the Property or held beneficial title to the Property
at the time of that recording.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --