1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 1 -
Motion to Dismiss
Filing username: UKR41NIAN
Counsel for: robloxrules756
SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
mellanchoIy, Case No. RSC-CV-7683
Plaintiff,
vs. Motion to Dismiss
robloxrules756,
Defendant.
Motion to Dismiss
Defendant robloxrules756 (“Defendant”), in his individual capacity, by and through
the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rid. R. Civ. P. 4(g) and 5(d), respectfully moves
the court to dismiss the above-captioned matter for previously determined improper filing
of an administrative subpoena and failure to refile the administrative subpoena without
prejudice.
Statement of Facts
On August 12th, the State Auditor presented to this court pursuant to 2 R. Stat. §
512.006, an order compelling Defendant robloxrules756 (“Defendant”), to comply with
an administrative subpoena duly issued to defendant by the Auditor under 2 R. Stat. §
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 2 -
Motion to Dismiss
511.101. On August 15th, this court found that the administrative subpoena issued to the
defendant was improperly filed under RCS 2 R. Stat. § 511.101.
Standard of Review
A defendant may move to dismiss an action where the plaintiff has failed to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5). In determining whether
relief remains legally available, the Court must consider whether the plaintiff possesses
a presently enforceable legal right rather than a right dependent upon an instrument that
has already been rejected as unlawful. Ridgeway’s pleading rules require a claim for
relief to contain a statement showing that the claimant is actually entitled to relief. Rid. R.
Civ. P. 8(a). Ridgeway law also expressly permits involuntary dismissal. Under Rule
28(b)(2), upon motion of the defendant and notice, the Court may dismiss an action for
the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the Rules or an order of the
Court. The same Rule recognizes that dismissal is appropriate where, upon the
applicable facts and law, the plaintiff has demonstrated no right to relief. Although
Ridgeway’s ordinary subpoena procedure is governed by Rule 32, that Rule likewise
contemplates the existence of a valid subpoena before judicial compulsion occurs.
Among other requirements, a subpoena must be properly issued, must command
compliance in accordance with the Rule, and remains subject to judicial modification or
rejection when legally defective or oppressive. In Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v.
Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (1946), the Supreme Court emphasized that administrative
investigative authority remains limited by the requirement that an agency not act
arbitrarily or beyond its statutory authority. The Court upheld enforcement there
specifically because the Administrator had acted in accordance with the authority
granted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 3 -
Motion to Dismiss
Argument
I. THE AUDITOR’S ORIGINAL SUBPOENA CANNOT SUPPORT THIS ACTION
BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED AS CONTRARY TO STATUTE.
The State Auditor’s original administrative subpoena was rejected because it violated
the governing State statute. That determination is dispositive as to the legal force of that
particular subpoena unless and until the Auditor undertakes the procedures necessary
to issue a new, lawful subpoena. The State therefore cannot proceed as though the
defective subpoena remains operative. Once the subpoena was rejected, it ceased to
supply a valid legal basis upon which the Auditor could compel production. Whatever
authority the Auditor may possess generally to investigate or issue subpoenas does not
transform a legally defective subpoena into an enforceable one. The distinction is
important. The issue is not whether the Auditor possesses subpoena authority in the
abstract. The issue is whether this Auditor presently possesses a valid subpoena
directed toward this Defendant. The answer is no.
II. THE AUDITOR’S FAILURE TO ISSUE A CORRECTED SUBPOENA LEAVES
NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO ENFORCE.
The State’s present action suffers from a more fundamental problem than a correctable
defect in wording. The administrative instrument upon which enforcement depends no
longer exists as a valid compulsory demand.
An administrative enforcement proceeding is derivative of the underlying administrative
subpoena. A court does not create an administrative subpoena for an agency; rather, it
determines whether an otherwise valid administrative demand may be judicially
enforced. Where the administrative demand itself has already been rejected,
enforcement cannot precede the issuance of a lawful replacement. The Auditor was
afforded the opportunity to correct the statutory defect by issuing a compliant
administrative subpoena. The Auditor has not done so. Consequently, the Court is not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 4 -
Motion to Dismiss
being asked to enforce a valid subpoena whose recipient refuses compliance; it is
effectively being asked to continue an enforcement proceeding despite the absence of
any valid subpoena at all.
III. THE STATE’S FAILURE TO CURE THE DEFECT WARRANTS DISMISSAL.
Rule 28(b)(2) permits dismissal where a plaintiff fails to prosecute its action. Here, after
the original subpoena was rejected, the affirmative step necessary to continue the
controversy belonged to the Auditor: issue a new subpoena conforming to the statute.
Rid. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2) The Auditor’s failure to take that step leaves the proceeding
procedurally stagnant. The Defendant cannot respond to a nonexistent lawful subpoena,
and the Court cannot determine compliance with an administrative demand that has
never been validly reissued. Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure expressly contemplate
dismissal for prolonged inactivity as well. Rule 28(b)(1) permits the Court, upon notice,
to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution where the matter has remained on the
docket for two weeks without qualifying activity. If the requisite period has elapsed here,
that provision supplies an additional and independent basis for dismissal.
IV. THE PRESENT ACTION ALSO FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR
ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THE STATE CANNOT SHOW A PRESENT
ENTITLEMENT TO RELIEF.
Rule 8 requires a claimant to show that it is entitled to relief, and Rule 12(a)(5) permits
dismissal where it cannot do so. Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5) Assuming this action seeks
enforcement of the administrative subpoena, the necessary chain of authority is
straightforward: The Auditor must possess statutory authority to issue the subpoena; the
subpoena must comply with the statute establishing that authority; the recipient must
then be legally obligated to comply; and only after noncompliance may the State seek
judicial enforcement. That chain presently breaks at the second step. The original
subpoena was rejected for statutory noncompliance. No corrected subpoena has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE - 5 -
Motion to Dismiss
filed or served. The Defendant therefore has no presently enforceable administrative
obligation arising from that subpoena, and the State consequently has no existing
violation upon which judicial enforcement can operate. This is not an argument that the
Auditor forever loses its investigative authority. The Auditor may remain free, subject to
the applicable statute and any governing limitations, to issue a new and legally sufficient
subpoena. But the possibility that the Auditor might later create an enforceable
obligation does not establish a present entitlement to judicial relief.
Conclusion
The State Auditor’s original administrative subpoena was rejected because it
failed to comply with the statute governing the Auditor’s subpoena authority. The Auditor
has not cured that defect, issued a replacement subpoena, or otherwise created a
presently enforceable administrative demand. There is therefore no valid subpoena
before this Court to enforce. Under Rid. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2), the Court may dismiss for
failure to prosecute, and Rule 28(b)(1) provides an additional basis where the action has
remained inactive for the prescribed period. Rid. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(1) Rule 12(a)(5) further
permits dismissal because, absent a valid subpoena, the State cannot demonstrate a
present entitlement to the enforcement relief it seeks. Rid. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(5) Accordingly,
Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the present enforcement action,
without prejudice to whatever lawful authority the State Auditor may possess to issue a
new administrative subpoena that complies with the governing statute.
