Teece et al v. The United States Internal Revenue Service et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
REBECCA SUE TEECE; and RICHARD
KIMBALL TEECE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY MOTION FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(DOC. NO. 44)
Case No. 2:25-cv-00322
District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
Rebecca and Richard Teece, proceeding without an attorney, have moved for a
declaratory judgment against the State of Utah, the Utah Attorney General’s Office, and
the Utah State Tax Commission (the State Defendants).1 The Teeces seek a court
order declaring “the Tort Claim was mailed, received, and is a binding contract between
the [State Defendants] and Plaintiffs” and the State Defendants “have waived their
immunity.”2 The State Defendants filed a response construing this motion as seeking
1 (Req. for Mot. for Declaratory J., Doc. No. 44.)
2 (Id. at 2.)
Case 2:25-cv-00322-HCN-DAO Document 63 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
relief relating to the Teeces’ state law claims against them (Claims 9, 14, 16, and 19),
and arguing the Teeces are not entitled to the requested relief.3
In a separate report and recommendation, the undersigned has recommended
the district judge dismiss all the Teeces’ claims against the State Defendants.4
Specifically, the undersigned recommended dismissal of their federal claims based on
lack of standing (as to Claim 15), Eleventh Amendment immunity (as to Claims 10, 11,
17, 18, and 20) and failure to state a claim (as to Claims 12, 13, and 21).5 The
undersigned also recommended the district judge decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Teeces’ state law claims (Claims 9, 14, 16, 19) and dismiss those
claims without prejudice.6
In light of this prior recommendation, the undersigned recommends the district
judge also deny the Teeces’ motion for declaratory judgment.7 It is difficult to discern
which claims their motion relates to. But assuming, as the State Defendants do, that
the motion relates to the state law claims, the motion should be denied in the event the
court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims. Likewise, to the extent
the Teeces seek relief relating to their federal claims, they are not entitled to such relief
3 (Resp. to Req. for Mot. for Declaratory J., Doc. No. 48.)
4 (See R. & R. to Grant Defs.’ Mots. to Dismiss, Doc. No. 61.)
5 (See id. at 15, 26.)
6 (See id. at 15, 26–27.)
7 (Doc. No. 44.)
Case 2:25-cv-00322-HCN-DAO Document 63 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
where the Teeces either lack standing, fail to state a claim, or the State Defendants are
immune. Accordingly, the Teece’s motion for declaratory judgment should be denied.
The Teeces have the right to object to this Report and Recommendation within
fourteen days, and failure to object may be considered a waiver of objections.8
DATED this 30th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Daphne A. Oberg
United States Magistrate Judge
8 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Case 2:25-cv-00322-HCN-DAO Document 63 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3