Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00250/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00250-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hilda A. Hernandez and Elvia Callahan, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-00250-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 On April 25, 2011, the United States filed an action against the Defendants, Hilda 

Hernandez and Elvia Callahan, under the Arizona Fraudulent Transfer Act (AFTA), 

A.R.S. § 44-1001-1010. The Government sued Defendants for the value they received as 

a result of an alleged fraudulent transfer of real property at the location where Alfonso’s 

Carnitas, Inc. operated Alfonso’s Carnitas restaurant. The judgment amount represents 

$47,059 for unpaid employment taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties that Alfonso’s 

Carnitas, Inc. owes the IRS from 2003 through 2007. 

 To succeed on its claim, the Government must establish its creditor status, a 

property transfer, and actual or constructive fraud on the part of the transferor. In a prior 

Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found the Government prevailed as to 

Defendant Hernandez and recommended the Court grant summary judgment for the 

Government as to her. However, the Magistrate Judge found material questions of fact 

remained in dispute as to Defendant Callahan, which would prevent summary judgment 

being entered against her. 

Case 4:11-cv-00250-DCB Document 58 Filed 08/06/13 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 

 On February 20, 2013, the Court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s 

R&R as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court granted Judgment for the 

Government against Defendant Hernandez. The Court did not grant summary judgment 

against Defendant Callahan because it appeared she may be a good-faith transferee. The 

Court ordered the Plaintiff and Defendant Callahan to file a Joint Pretrial Order and 

subsequently appointed counsel to serve pro bono on behalf of Defendant Callahan. 

 On April 9, 2013, the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order was filed. It identified two 

remaining factual issues to be tried and decided: (1) Ms. Callahan’s subjective 

unawareness of the government’s tax lien against the property, and (2) the amount of Ms. 

Callahan’s payments on the loan. According to the Defendant, neither of these issues 

were raised in the original Answer. 

 On April 1, 2013, the Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Answer. The proposed Amended Answer includes a demand for trial by jury on all the 

factual issues not previously raised in the original Answer. The Government does not 

object to the Defendant’s Amended Answer, but objects to the Defendant’s request for a 

jury trial. The Court allows Defendant Callahan to amend her Answer, which is her first 

pleading to be properly filed with the Court. Defendant Hernandez filed the first 

Answer, pro se. It was not signed by Defendant Callahan. While a non-attorney may 

appear pro se on his own behalf, “[sh]e has no authority to appear as an attorney for 

others than [herself].” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. Unites States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

Defendant Hernandez could not answer for Defendant Callahan. 

 The Court allows the Amended Answer including Defendant’s timely jury demand 

as to new matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1). The Government claims the Defendant’s 

Amended Answer does not raise any new issues for trial that were not already stated in 

the initial Answer filed by Defendant Hernandez. The Court finds the initial Answer filed 

by Defendant Hernandez and the proposed Amended Answer filed by Defendant 

Callahan to be quite different. The first did not touch on Defendant Callahan’s subjective 

Case 4:11-cv-00250-DCB Document 58 Filed 08/06/13 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 

good faith. Nor did it state the amount of the Defendant’s payments on the loan or her 

entitlement to an offset. The proposed Amended Answer directly raises these two issues 

left to be tried – raising them for the first time in a pleading properly filed by Defendant 

Callahan. 

Conclusion 

 Since the Court is granting Defendant Callahan’s request for leave to file an 

Amended Answer, her jury demand is timely as to all new issues raised by the Amended 

Answer, which are the issues remaining for trial. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer and Motion 

for Jury Trial (Doc. 54) are GRANTED. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2013. 

Case 4:11-cv-00250-DCB Document 58 Filed 08/06/13 Page 3 of 3