Opinion
2 CA-CV 2022-0102
01-18-2023
LYLE M. HANZLICK, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants/Appellees.
Lyle M. Hanzlick, Tucson In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. C20221627 The Honorable Casey F. McGinley, Judge
Lyle M. Hanzlick, Tucson In Propria Persona
Judge Sklar authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom and Chief Judge Vásquez concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
SKLAR, JUDGE
¶1 Lyle Hanzlick appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his complaint. The complaint alleges that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) improperly rejected his crop-insurance claim filed approximately forty years ago. The court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
Procedural Background
¶2 Hanzlick filed his complaint in April 2022. The USDA's allegedly wrongful denial of his claim occurred after his cotton crop failed in 1982.
¶3 In May 2022, Hanzlick sued Thomas Vilsack, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, along with the USDA and FCIC. Hanzlick alleged that he was entitled to relief under his crop insurance policy and that, by rejecting his claim, the defendants had engaged in fraud and "[s]piteful [m]alice" by singling him out while paying similar claims and making emergency loans.
¶4 None of the defendants responded to the complaint, so Hanzlick filed an application for default. Whether service was effective is unclear, but the trial court did not reach that issue, and it is not an issue on appeal. On reviewing the default application, the trial court denied it and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that under federal law, lawsuits arising from the FCICs denial of crop-insurance claims must be brought in the United States District Court.
¶5 This appeal followed. Defendants did not file an answering brief, and we could treat this failure as a confession of error. Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 101 (App. 1994). However, we decline to do so because, as discussed below, Hanzlick has waived appellate review of his arguments, and because the appeal fails on the merits. This court has jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(3).
Hanzlick has waived his arguments on appeal by failing to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
¶6 Preliminarily, Hanzlick has failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. An appellant is required to make a bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 8 (App. 2022). Failure to do so can result in waiver of issues and arguments that are not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority. See Polanco v. Indus. Comm'n, 214 Ariz. 489, n.2 (App. 2007). This is true even where the appellant is self-represented. See Ramos, 252 Ariz. 519, ¶ 8.
¶7 Hanzlick's opening brief fails to comply with numerous provisions of Rule 13 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. It contains no table of contents or citations, and it contains no statement of the case, facts, or issues. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(1), (2), (4), (5), (6). It also fails to cite any legal authorities or any portion of the trial court record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7). Nor does it provide any meaningful legal argument as to why the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7)(A).
¶8 Due to the failure to comply with Rule 13, we could conclude that Hanzlick has waived his arguments on appeal. However, Hanzlick does assert-albeit without argument or authority - that the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. He argues that the court should have entered default. Given our preference for resolving issues on the merits, we will therefore address that argument. Cf. City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, ¶ 23 (2009) (explaining that finding of waiver for procedural defects is discretionary).
Hanzlick's appeal fails because Arizona's state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction
¶9 Although Hanzlick suggests otherwise, Arizona courts have an independent obligation to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction. Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 234 Ariz. 69, ¶ 5 (App. 2014). This is true even if the defendant does not raise jurisdictional defenses. Because subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is de novo. See In re Marriage of Crawford, 180 Ariz. 324, 326 (App. 1994).
¶10 Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case. State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, ¶ 14 (2010). Relevant here, the Arizona Constitution confers jurisdiction to the superior court over "[c]ases and proceedings in which exclusive jurisdiction is not vested by law in another court." Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14, cl. 1. Where federal law vests the federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over a type of controversy, it deprives the Arizona courts of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Satterly v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., 204 Ariz. 174, ¶ 28 (App. 2003) (holding that state courts lacked jurisdiction to determine ERISA claims that, under federal law, must be litigated in federal courts).
¶11 Here, federal law has created a detailed statutory scheme governing crop-insurance claims. 7 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1524. The relevant statute, Section 1508, precludes coverage where the producer-in this case, Hanzlick-has failed to follow good farming practices. § 1508(a)(3)(A)(iii). It also provides that where the FCIC denies a claim, "an action on the claim may be brought against the [FCIC] or Secretary only in the United States district court for the district in which the insured farm is located." § 1508(j)(2)(A). A related statute also provides that the United States District Court "shall have exclusive original jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy, of all suits brought by or against the [FCIC]." § 1506(d).
¶12 Under this statutory scheme, Arizona's state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Hanzlick's lawsuit. Both counts of Hanzlick's complaint concern the FCIC's denial of his crop-insurance claim. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed his claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
¶13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.