Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02176/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02176-16/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MICHAEL CAREY, LEONE CAREY;

DOUGLAS CARPA and ROBERT

TALBOT (or their successor

trustee), as Trustee of the

RANCH HOLDING TRUST; MICHAEL

BLOOMQUIST (or his successor

trustee) as Truste of the

HIDDEN MEADOWS HOLDING TRUST;

PAMELA GRAFF; PATRICIA WELCH

(aka PATRICIA KOERNER); STATE

OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX

BOARD, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Presently before the Court is a “Motion for Rehearing in

Camera to Correct Clear Error” filed by Ernest Aldridge, an

alleged tenant in one of the properties owned by Defendants

Michael and Leone Carey.

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 175 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 3
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

In addition to his tenancy, Aldridge claimed an ownership

interest and as such opposed the Motion for Ejectment filed by

the government in this matter after this Court’s summary judgment

in favor of the United States, which found that the Careys were

the sole owners of the properties in question, was affirmed on

appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Aldridge filed the instant Motion

after the government’s ejectment request was granted (Docket

No. 160) and Aldridge was ordered to vacate the premises.

Although the grounds on which Aldridge’s Motion is brought

have not been specified, since his Motion pertains to a judgment

issued against the Careys that affected Aldridge’s purported

interest, the Court will construe his request as a motion seeking

to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e). Such motions should be granted sparingly and

only as an extraordinary remedy. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

An examination of the arguments proffered in support of

Aldridge’s Motion indicate that they have no merit whatsoever,

let alone merit justifying the extraordinary remedy of relief

under Rule 59(e). Contrary to his contention, the Motion for

Ejectment was properly decided and Aldridge was afforded his due

process right to be heard; indeed, he had an opportunity to

oppose the Motion and did so. Under Eastern District Local

Rule 230(g), the Court has the right to dispense with oral

argument if it determines that such argument would add nothing to

the parties’ respective positions as outlined in their written

briefing. The Court properly made that determination here.

/// 

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 175 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 3
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

 Because oral argument was not of material assistance, the 1

Court also ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D.

Cal. Local Rule 78-230(g). While the Court recognizes that

Aldridge’s Motion contained an express demand for oral argument,

under the Local Rules the Court has the discretion to determine

that oral argument is unnecessary, and it did so in this

instance. 

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing (Docket No. 165) is

accordingly DENIED. 

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 175 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3