Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01431/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01431-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND SOLUTIONS, CASE NO. CV F 05-1431 REC LJO

INC.,

ORDER TO SERVE PETITION AND

Plaintiff, TO VACATE FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION

vs. (Doc. 7.)

FRED CHYNOWETH, Revenue Agent,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

On November 1, 2005, plaintiff Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc. (“plaintiff”), appeared by

its president Kevin DeBondt (“Mr. DeBondt”), acting pro se, and who filed for plaintiff a petition

(“petition”) to seek to quash an Internal Revenue Service summons issued to a bank as a third-party

recordkeeper. On January 27, 2006, Mr. DeBondt, acting pro se for plaintiff, filed an ex parte motion

to address action taken by this Court’s clerk regarding a summons for plaintiff’s petition. Plaintiff’s

papers were signed by Mr. DeBondt, and there was no indication that an attorney represents plaintiff,

a corporation.

This Court issued his January 31, 2006 order (“January 31 order”) to note that plaintiff

improperly pursued this action without licensed counsel. The January 31 order struck plaintiff’s ex parte

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 03/30/06 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

motion, required plaintiff, no later than February 28, 2006, to secure representation of licensed counsel,

and stayed this action pending plaintiff’s appearance through licensed counsel. The January 31 order

admonished plaintiff that “this Court will dismiss this action unless plaintiff, no later than February 28,

2006, secures representation of licensed counsel to appear for plaintiff in this action.”

On February 23, 2006, Mr. DeBondt, acting pro se for plaintiff, filed a “Notice of Void

Judgment, Objection, Motions for Reconsideration and Extension of Time” to challenge the January 31

order and to seek an extension to serve the summons and plaintiff’s petition. The district judge’s

February 28, 2006 order denied the relief sought by Mr. DeBondt, acting pro se for plaintiff.

This Court issued March 7, 2006 findings and recommendations to dismiss this action without

prejudice: (1) on grounds that plaintiff improperly attempts to proceed in this action without licensed

counsel; and (2) pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 11-110 for plaintiff’s failure to comply with this

Court’s orders and Local Rule regarding representation by counsel and to prosecute this action. On

March 21, 2006, Mr. DeBondt, acting pro se for plaintiff, filed a document entitled “Reply to Order

Denying ‘Notice of Void Judgment, Objection, Motions for Reconsideration and Extension of Time.’”

The document challenged orders of this Court and the district judge and acknowledged that plaintiff had

not secured counsel. Plaintiff filed no other papers to object timely to the March 7, 2006 findings and

recommendations.

On March 28, 2005, attorney Michael D. Troy for plaintiff filed objections to the March 7, 2006

findings and recommendations to indicate he will represent plaintiff and to request a continuance to no

earlier than May 10, 2006 for a hearing on plaintiff’s petition. However, plaintiff has filed no papers

to prove service of the summons and petition on defendant(s).

ORDER

With representation of plaintiff by counsel and on the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. VACATES its March 7, 2006 findings and recommendations;

2. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than April 14, 2006, to serve defendant(s) with the summons

and petition in compliance with F.R.Civ.P. 4(i) and to serve a proof of such service with

this Court; and

3. ADMONISHES plaintiff that this Court will tolerate no further delay to prosecute

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 03/30/06 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

3

this action and will recommend to dismiss this action if plaintiff failsto comply with

this order and to accomplish properly service of process on defendant(s).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3