Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01689-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A bench trial was held on this case; findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued

which determined that Defendants Michael Ioane Sr., Acacia Corporate Management LLC, and 

Mariposa Holdings Inc. (“Ioane Group”) have no legal interest in the properties at issue. Doc. 212. 

Plaintiff United States has asked for entry of judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 58. Doc. 221. 

The Ioane Group has made a motion for relief from a judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b), 

subsections (1), (4), and (6). Doc. 222. The Ioane Group asks for a stay of execution of judgment. 

Doc. 225. 

The Ioane Group seeks reconsideration based on the theory that “because a United States 

District Court has already determined who the true owner of the Subject Property is, this ruling 

cannot be overturned by another ruling in a district court without proper review of the original 

decision and ruling. In other words, the Court’s findings in the present case are improper because 

res judicata and/or collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second 

suit between same parties or parties in privity with them.” Doc. 222, Ioane Group Brief, 3:6-11, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

VINCENT STEVEN BOOTH, LOUISE 

Q. BOOTH, MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, 

ACACIA CORPORATE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, MARIPOSA 

HOLDINGS, INC., AND ALPHA 

ENTGERPRISES, LLC,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1689 AWI GSA 

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION 

FOR JUDGMENT

(Docs. 221, 222, and 225)

Case 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA Document 242 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

citations omitted. The Ioane Group refers to Eastern District of California Civil Case Number 07-

1129 and a document filed in that case entitled “quiet title pursuant to binding stipulated 

settlement and agreement between the parties herein” (“Stipulated Settlement”). See Doc. 222, 

4:23-28, Doc. 222-1. They are mistaken about the effects of Case 07-1129 and the Stipulated 

Settlement. The Stipulated Settlement was an agreement between Ioane, the Booths, and the 

various entities they controlled. Civ. Case 07-1129, Doc. 10. This court clarified in an order that 

the Stipulated Settlement had no legal effect:

The Stipulated Settlement was not given full effect since the Ioane Group 

voluntarily dismissed the Booths from the case without obtaining a final judgment 

against them. Specifically, after the Stipulated Settlement, the Ioane Group filed a 

motion for judgment against the Booths pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b) to 

resolve the case against those defendants while litigation continued with the United 

States. Doc. 37. The motion was denied: “[t]he settlement agreement purports to 

determine rights to the Propert[ies] as between [the Ioane Group and Booths.] 

However, ownership of the Properties is completely intertwined with the dispute 

between [the Ioane Group] and the United States.” Doc. 64, 8:21-23. Following 

that denial, the Ioane Group unilaterally dismissed the Booths pursuant to the then 

applicable Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1); pointedly, it was not by stipulation of the 

parties and made no reference to any settlement. Doc. 66. Under Fed. Rule Civ. 

Proc. 41(b), such a dismissal was without prejudice. The Booths are no longer 

defendants in this case; there was no final judgment against the Booths. 

Notwithstanding the fact that the court approved the Stipulated Settlement, it was 

not given effect in this case because the Ioane Group abandoned its claims against 

the Booths. In that sense, there is no binding order to be reconsidered. To clarify, 

the Stipulated Settlement is ineffective and certainly does not bind the United 

States in any way.

Doc. 148, July 17, 2012 Order, 3:22-4:11. Neither the Stipulated Settlement or any other action in 

Case 07-1129 has res judicata effect on this case. 

The request for reconsideration is DENIED. The Ioane Group’s motion for stay of 

execution of judgment is also DENIED. The United States’ request for entry of judgment is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA Document 242 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 2