Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00492/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00492-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1355 Petition for Return of Property

---

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

Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Pyle accepted jurisdiction then improperly denied

him a hearing. Instead, Judge Pyle denied Defendant a hearing because Judge Pyle recommended

against exercising jurisdiction over the Rule 41(g) motion. Regardless, this Court ruled, de novo,

against exercising its jurisdiction and, accordingly, denied the motion and entered Judgment. 

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen M. Trezza,

Plaintiff,

v.

United States of America,

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-492 TUC DCB

ORDER

On October 18, 2006, this Court ruled after a de novo review of the Report and

Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Pyle and all the briefs filed by the parties

related to whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over Defendant's Rule 41(g) Motion for

Return of Property.1

 This Court determined that under the equitable factors set out in

Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1990), the balance tipped against

exercising jurisdiction and denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

On October 19, 2006, Defendant filed an appeal, and he asks the Court to prevent

the Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

investigators in Tucson from viewing the seized documents, pending the appeal.

As this Court noted in its ruling, the statute of limitations for one of the tax years

under investigation runs on April 15, 2007. Defendant's pre-indictment maneuvering has

delayed the investigation long enough. This Court is not persuaded that Trezza raises any

Case 4:06-cv-00492-DCB Document 76 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 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 2

serious legal questions or that he faces any irreparable harm. See United States v. Search of

Law Office, Residence and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2003)

(damage to reputation from being indicted does not establish irreparable harm).

The Court finds no basis to prevent the AUSAs and IRS investigators in Tucson

from viewing the seized documents.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Maintain Status Quo Pending Appeal

(document 72) is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2006.

Case 4:06-cv-00492-DCB Document 76 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 2