Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01145/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01145-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO REMOVE LEVY AND HALT COLLECTIONS

No. C-07-01545 RMW

TSF

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed: 3/31/08 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT CARMELO TORRE

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

No. C-08-01145 RMW

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION

TO REMOVE LEVY AND HALT

COLLECTIONS

[Re Docket No. 6]

Robert Carmelo Torre, proceeding in forma pauperis, requests emergency relief of two

types. First, Mr. Torre requests that the court remove the levy placed by the Internal Revenue

Service ("IRS") on his personal bank account. Based on Mr. Torre's application to proceed in forma

pauperis, the account contained $800 as of February 27, 2008. See Docket No. 2. Second, Mr.

Torre requests that the court remove an IRS levy from his monthly social security payment. Mr.

Torre's sole source of income is his monthly social security payment of $1,775.00. See Docket No.

6, Ex. 2. The IRS has garnished this payment by $226.25 per month. Id.

Mr. Torre urges that these levies "leave [] him with nothing to live on." Mr. Torre also

argues that these levies are inappropriate because he received a discharge in bankruptcy in 2004. 

See id., Ex. 3. From the levy on the bank account, the IRS appears to be seeking unpaid assessments

from the tax years of 2000 and 2001. A bankruptcy discharge does not generally discharge debts

Case 5:08-cv-01145-RMW Document 11 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Mr. Torre did file a certificate of service, signed by himself, that he mailed a copy of his

emergency motion to the IRS Collections address. See Docket No. 7. As Mr. Torre recognizes in the

certificate of service, the IRS has yet to make an appearance and it seems unlikely the IRS has received

notice of his motion. It also seems unlikely that the IRS has received the summons or a copy of the

complaint in this case, given the absence of an executed and returned summons and the improper

addressing on the summons. See Docket No. 5.

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO REMOVE LEVY AND HALT COLLECTIONS

No. C-07-01545 RMW

TSF 2

owed to the IRS. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1). The discharge does not affect any tax duty where a

return was not filed. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B). The discharge also does not reach any tax owed

on a return which was due less than three years before the bankruptcy petition was filed. See 11

U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) (referring to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)). As Mr. Torre indicates that he filed for

bankruptcy on January 20, 2004, this may explain why the IRS continues to pursue the tax duties it

believes it is owed.

Putting aside the discussion of whether the IRS's pursuit of Mr. Torre's funds is proper, Mr.

Torre's application for emergency removal of the levies is improper. The court treats Mr. Torre's

request for emergency relief as a motion for a temporary restraining order under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 65(b). Rule 65(b) imposes strict limits on the court's ability to impose a temporary

restraining order without notice to the opposing party.1

 The first requirement is that an application

for a temporary restraining order must demonstrate that the movant will suffer "immediate and

irreparable harm," and that this showing must be made by facts in a sworn affidavit or verified

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Mr. Torre has not provided any sworn statement

verifying the facts he alleges or exhibits he supplies. The second requirement is that a movant must

explain what efforts he has made to give notice to the opposing party or explain why notice should

not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Mr. Torre does not explain what he has done to

give notice, even oral notice, to the IRS of his request for a restraining order.

In light of these defects, the court cannot issue Mr. Torre's requested emergency relief. The

application is therefore denied.

DATED: 3/28/08 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-01145-RMW Document 11 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION TO REMOVE LEVY AND HALT COLLECTIONS

No. C-07-01545 RMW

TSF 3

Notice of this document has been mailed to:

Plaintiff:

Robert Carmelo Torre 

POB 307 

Santa Cruz, CA 95061 

Counsel for Defendants:

(No appearance)

Dated: 3/31/08 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:08-cv-01145-RMW Document 11 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3