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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND )

SOLUTIONS, INC., )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

FRED CHYNOWETH, REVENUE )

AGENT, et al., )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1431 REC/LJO

ORDER DENYING “NOTICE OF

VOID JUDGMENT, OBJECTION,

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND EXTENSION OF TIME” 

(Doc. 5)

Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc., appearing by its

president, Kevin L. DeBondt, acting in pro per, filed a “Petition

to Quash Summons, Demand for a Bill of Particulars, Request for

Injunction, Claim for Personal Damages” against Internal Revenue

Service Agent Fred Chynoweth and Does 1-10. The Petition alleges

that Revenue Agent Chynoweth lacked legal authority to issue a

third party recordkeeper summons to Washington Mutual regarding

the tax liability of Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc. for the

period June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003. On January 27, 2006,

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 6
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

2

Mr. DeBondt, acting in pro per on behalf of Environmental Sound

Solutions, Inc., filed an “Ex Parte Motion to reverse clerk

action”. On January 31, 2006, United States Magistrate O’Neill

filed an “Order to Strike Ex Parte Motion and To Stay Action”,

wherein the Magistrate Judge ruled:

A ‘corporation may appear in the federal

courts only through licensed counsel.’ 

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S.

194, 202 ... (1993); United States v. High

Country Broadcasting Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 11244,

1245 (9 Cir. 1993); see Osborn v. President th

of Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 829

... (1824); Turner v. American Bar Ass’n, 407

F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D.Tex. 1975)(citing the

‘long line of cases’ from 1824 to the present

holding that a corporation may only be

represented by licensed counsel). All

artificial entities must appear in federal

court through counsel. Rowland, 506 U.S. at

202 ... This Court’s Local Rule 83-183(a)

provides: ‘A corporation or other entity may

appear only by an attorney.’ 

Plaintiff pursues neither this action nor its

ex parte motion through licensed counsel. As

such, plaintiff’s ex parte motion is not

properly before this Court. 

On the basis of good cause, this Court:

1. STRIKES plaintiff’s ex parte motion to

reverse clerk action;

2. ORDERS plaintiff, no later than February

28, 2006, to secure representation of

licensed counsel to appear for plaintiff in

this action;

3. ADMONISHES 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; and 

4. STAYS this action pending plaintiff’s

appearance through licensed counsel.

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

On February 23, 2006, Mr. DeBondt, acting in pro per on

behalf of Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc., filed a “Notice of

Void Judgment, Objection, Motions for Reconsideration and

Extension of Time”. 

Mr. DeBondt argues that the January 31 Order issued by

Magistrate Judge O’Neill is void because no order to show cause

was issued before the Magistrate Judge issued that Order, thereby

depriving Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc. of notice and an

opportunity to be heard before being ordered to obtain counsel

and striking the Ex Parte Motion. 

However, the Magistrate Judge has authority to strike

improper pleadings sua sponte. 

Mr. DeBondt objects to the January 31 Order on the ground

that he has not agreed to allow judicial decisions to be made by

a Magistrate Judge and because the January 31 Order was not

signed by a district court judge.

However, a United States Magistrate Judge is authorized by

28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rules 72-300 to 72-303, Local Rules of

Practice to issue orders and/or findings and recommendations in

civil cases notwithstanding the absence of consent by a litigant. 

Included in these duties are petitions to quash administrative

summonses filed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2). See Rule 72-

302(c)(10). 

Mr. DeBondt argues that the January 31 Order issued by

Magistrate Judge O’Neill is void because no order to show cause

was issued before the Magistrate Judge issued that Order, thereby

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

depriving Environmental Sound Solutions, Inc. of notice and an

opportunity to be heard before being ordered to obtain counsel

and striking the Ex Parte Motion. 

However, the Magistrate Judge has authority to strike

improper pleadings sua sponte. 

Mr. DeBondt also seeks reconsideration of the January 31

Order to the extent it holds that a corporation must be

represented by counsel in proceedings in federal court. Mr.

DeBondt argues that this rule does not apply to petitions seeking

review of administrative decisions by federal agencies or federal

agents. Mr. DeBondt contends:

Where Congress has created an entitlement to

judicial review for Plaintiff as it has done

at 28 U.S.C. § 507 and administrative law

causes Plaintiff to be legally appearing

before the involved agency and thus not

appearing in the federal Court, involvement

of the Court’s resources notwithstanding,

then where this Court sits as a clerk of the

involved agency, Plaintiff’s ex parte motion

is properly before the Court, applying Local

Rule 83-183(a) would ‘abridge, enlarge or

modify [Plaintiff’s] substantive right’ to

receive due process before the involved

agency, in violation of 28 U.S.C. 2072(b),

and said Local Rule cannot therefore

constitute sufficient good cause for:

striking Plaintiff’s motion; ordering

Plaintiff to secure licensed counsel; staying

Plaintiff’s action; nor dismissing

Plaintiff’s case.

However, Mr. DeBondt cites no authority for that a

corporation seeking judicial review in federal court under the

Administrative Procedures Act is allowed to proceed without

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 6
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

The court is not expressing any opinion with regard to Mr. 1

DeBondt’s assertion that the petition is brought pursuant to the

APA. 

5

counsel and the court can find none. Therefore, the court 1

concludes that Mr. DeBondt has not demonstrated that the January

31 Order is contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

Mr. DeBondt further requests an extension of time to

complete service of process, contending that the 120 day period

set forth in Rule 4(m), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will

expire on March 1, 2006. In so moving, Mr. DeBondt refers to the 

contentions made by him in the Ex Parte Motion to Reverse Clerk

Action ordered stricken in the January 31 Order. The court

denies this request for extension on two grounds. First, as

correctly ruled in the January 31 Order, Mr. DeBondt cannot

represent the corporation in this matter. Secondly, the

allegations of the petition and its supporting exhibit establish

that the provisions of Rule 12(a)(3)(B), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, determine when an answer is to be after proper service

of summons and the petition. Rule 12(a)(3)(B) provides:

An officer or employee of the United States

sued in an individual capacity for acts or

omissions occurring in connection with the

performance of duties on behalf of the United

States shall serve an answer to the complaint

... within 60 days after service on the

officer or employee, or service on the United

States Attorney, whichever is later.

Because it is clear that Rule 12(a)(3)(B) applies, Mr. DeBondt’s

contention that the Clerk of the Court erred in changing the

number of days on the summons within which Revenue Agent

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Chynoweth is required to file an answer is without merit. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The “Notice of Void Judgment, Objection, Motions for

Reconsideration and Extension of Time” filed by Kevin DeBondt,

acting in pro per on behalf of Environmental Sound Solutions,

Inc. is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01431-AWI-LJO Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 6 of 6