Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL H. BROOKE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22–cv–960–KJM–CSK

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF

In this action, Plaintiff United States filed a Complaint to reduce federal tax 

assessments to judgment and foreclose federal tax liens on real property against Bill H. 

Brooke, the Estate of Shirley J. Brooke, and the Shasta County Treasurer-Tax Collector. 

(ECF No. 1.) Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

against Defendant Bill H. Brooke, which was filed on December 19, 2023. (ECF No. 36.) 

Defendant Brooke failed to file an opposition, and so the Court vacated the hearing and 

provided him with an opportunity to file a written response. (ECF No. 37.) Defendant 

Brooke did not file a written response, but the Court subsequently learned that 

Defendant Brooke appeared at the Sacramento federal courthouse on the date of the 

vacated hearing. Given this, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court ordered 

Defendant Brooke to file a written response to the default judgment motion by February 

28, 2024. (ECF No. 39.) 

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 45 Filed 05/29/24 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

On February 26, 2024, Defendant Brooke filed a request for more time to oppose, 

indicating he was attempting to secure counsel for this matter. (ECF No. 40.) Given this, 

the Court directed Defendant Brooke to file a declaration by April 30, 2024 describing the 

efforts he made to retain counsel. (ECF No. 41.) The Court also ordered Defendant 

Brooke to file his opposition to the motion for default judgment, or a statement of nonopposition, by May 14, 2024. (Id.)

On April 29, 2024, Defendant Brooke filed a notice indicating he was still trying to 

secure counsel but had not done so. (ECF No. 43.) Further, Defendant Brooke filed a 

“response to opposition” on May 9, 2024. (ECF No. 44.) The Court construes this filing 

as Defendant Brooke’s opposition to the motion for default judgment. 

Given the longstanding policy in this Circuit of discouraging judgment by default, 

see Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986), and in the interests of justice, 

the Court now orders Plaintiff United States to file a reply brief within 10 days of this 

order. Therein, Plaintiff shall either: (a) argue why default judgment should still be 

entered under the factors described in Eitel; or (b) state it has no opposition to the Court 

lifting the entry of default and ordering Defendant to respond to the Complaint.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff United States shall file a 

reply brief to Defendant Brooke’s opposition within 10 days of this order.

Dated: May 28, 2024

3, broo.960

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 45 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 2