Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04069-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: 26:7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASHMARQ GLOBAL CONSULTANTS, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-04069-WHO 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 43

Plaintiff Cashmarq Global Consultants, Inc. filed this case on July 6, 2018, alleging that 

the Internal Revenue Service improperly levied funds from its bank account to recover tax 

liabilities of one of its shareholders. On June 7, 2019, Cashmarq informed its counsel that it was 

terminating their representation, and later that month counsel filed an unopposed motion to 

withdraw. At the August 7 hearing on that motion and in an Order to Show Cause the following 

day, I laid out the following facts: (i) Cashmarq had failed to respond to a document demand 

dated March 18, 2019, (ii) Cashmarq’s shareholders had failed to respond to subpoenas duces 

tecum dated May 17, 2019, and (iii) a corporation could not proceed in federal court without 

counsel. Dkt. Nos. 45, 46. I further ordered that by August 19, a Cashmarq officer file a 

declaration under penalty of perjury explaining the failure to respond to discovery, who 

Cashmarq’s lawyer would be, and how it would comply with either the existing case scheduling 

order or the proposed schedule set forth in the parties’ pending stipulation. I indicated that failure 

to respond to the Order to Show Cause would result in dismissal with prejudice.

On the day that declaration was due, Cashmarq responded that it hoped to retain a lawyer 

from my old firm, contingent on my agreement not to recuse myself or on the government’s 

consent. Dkt. No. 48. Because Cashmarq’s proposal raised an obvious conflict that would require 

Case 3:18-cv-04069-WHO Document 52 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

my recusal, the following day I issued an Order that expressed my distaste for it and also 

continued the Order to Show Cause hearing by two weeks to allow Cashmarq to proceed with its 

backup option. Dkt. No. 49. I ordered that Cashmarq meet its discovery obligations by the time 

of the hearing or explain when it would do so. 

No new counsel appeared at the September 4, 2019 hearing on the Order to Show Cause. 

Its soon-to-be-terminated counsel indicated that Cashmarq had identified someone who was 

willing to accept the representation, but Cashmarq was still working to secure funds to retain that 

counsel. Because counsel indicated their understanding that the funds would be available by 

Friday, September 6, I gave Cashmarq yet another opportunity. I set a case management 

conference for September 24 and ordered that Cashmarq ensure its new counsel enter an 

appearance no later than Monday, September 9. See Dkt. No. 50 (“If counsel has not entered an 

appearance by September 9, 2019 and begun active representation by the next case management 

conference, the case will be dismissed.”). 

No appearance has been entered; this case remains at a standstill.

1

 On September 17, 2019, 

the day the parties’ joint case management statement was due, the United States submitted a status 

report. Dkt. No. 51. The government indicated that it contacted the attorney Cashmarq intended 

to retain as of the September 4 hearing and learned that he had not in fact been retained. 

For nearly five months, Cashmarq has failed to comply with its discovery obligations or 

otherwise prosecute this case. The fact discovery deadline has passed. Three months have 

elapsed since Cashmarq indicated that it was terminating its counsel’s representation. No new 

counsel has appeared despite a series of extensions I have afforded. Of the five factors to consider 

in determining whether dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted, see Moneymaker v CoBen, 

31 F. 3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation and

 

1 The most recent update Cashmarq has provided on meeting its long overdue discovery 

obligations comes from an August 19 declaration from Cashmarq shareholder David Scott 

Cacchione. Dkt. No. 48-2. In it he indicates that the shareholders have resolved their previous 

disputes and intend to “act in a unified manner with the representation of new counsel,” including 

by “timely respond[ing] to all future requests for documents and honor[ing] the deadlines 

provided.” The fact remains that Cashmarq cannot proceed without counsel. It has had three 

months to secure funding to retain counsel or to identify counsel who is willing to proceed on a 

contingency basis, yet it has failed to do either. 

Case 3:18-cv-04069-WHO Document 52 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the court’s need to manage its docket weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. The prejudice to 

defendant does as well. While dismissal would not dispose of this case on its merits, defendant’s 

failure to provide discovery has hindered defendant from filing a dispositive motion or otherwise 

resolving the case on the merits. And given my orders allowing defendant additional time to 

comply with its obligations but warning it of the sanction that would follow if it failed to do so, I 

do not think less drastic sanctions are appropriate or would work. For these reasons, this case is 

DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

The motion to withdraw of Moskowitz LLP (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED. The stipulation 

to continue the case schedule (Dkt. No. 43) is TERMINATED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04069-WHO Document 52 Filed 09/18/19 Page 3 of 3