Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01905/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01905-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

U{lited States Coutt of Appeals 

Tenth Cfr::uit 

NATIONAL COMMODITY AND BARTER ) 

ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL COMMODITY ) 

EXCHANGE; JOHN A. VOSS, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

JOHN E. GRANDBOUCHE; JOSEPH P. GORMAN; ) 

SANDRA L. GORMAN; MARLENE ASPINALL; ) 

MELVIN HOUSER; CATHY KAY HOUSER; ) 

DEAN SALISBURY, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 31 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

C!erk 

No. 88-1905 

(D.C. No. 85-M-1064) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1905 Document: 01019961721 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs commenced this action April 17, 1985, challenging 

an Internal Revenue Service (IRS} jeopardy assessment against 

plaintiffs, in the amount of $20,000,000, and the subsequent 

seizure and levy of plaintiffs' property pursuant to that 

assessment. Plaintiffs' amended complaint asserted essentially 

three different claims for relief: l} claims for wrongful levy of 

property pursuant to 26 u.s.c. § 7426; 2} claims for preliminary 

and permanent injunctive relief preventing the IRS from filing 

further liens or notices of levy based upon the assessment; and 3} 

claims pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7429, which provides expedited, but 

limited, judicial review of a jeopardy assessment, see generally 

Pals v. United States, 867 F.2d 1162, 1163 (8th Cir. 1989}. 

The district court entered three orders disposing of 

plaintiffs' claims. On June 12, 1985, the district court 

dismissed plaintiffs' § 7429 claims. On January 13, 1986, the 

district court denied plaintiffs summary judgment on the claims 

for injunctive relief and dismissed all plaintiffs' remaining 

claims except those for wrongful levy under§ 7426. The district 

court ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint clarifying 

their§ 7426 claims. Plaintiffs failed to amend the complaint 

and, therefore, the district court, on June 24, 1986, dismissed 

the§ 7426 claims for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiffs immediately appealed the January 13 order on 

January 21, 1986. Because the § 7426 claims remained pending, 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1905 Document: 01019961721 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 2 
however, the January 13 order was a nonfinal order. This court, 

therefore, explicitly held it had jurisdiction to consider only 

the denial of injunctive relief, as an interlocutory order under 

28 u.s.c. § 1292(a)(l). National Commodity & Barter Assoc. v. 

Gorman, Nos. 86-1118, 86-1212, slip op. at 4 (10th Cir. Dec. 24, 

1987). This court further held that, in light of the subsequent 

dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims in June, 1986, from 

which plaintiffs did not appeal, the claims for injunctive relief 

had become moot. Id. This court, therefore, remanded the 

district court's order with instructions to vacate the January 13 

order to the extent it denied preliminary injunctive relief. Id. 

at 4-5. 

Before the district court on remand, plaintiffs argued the 

mandate of this court allowed them to reassert the§ 7429 claims, 

originally dismissed in June, 1985. The district court, on 

April 5, 1988, denied plaintiffs' request to reconsider the§ 7429 

claims. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court's 

April, 1988, order refusing to allow plaintiffs to reassert the 

§ 7429 claims, as well as the district court's original dismissal 

of those claims. 

The June, 1985, order dismissing plaintiffs' § 7429 claims 

was not final and appealable until the district court's June, 

1986, order dismissing the remaining§ 7426 claims and ending the 

litigation on the merits. 1 See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 

1 For 

appealed 

provides 

jeopardy 

purposes of this 

the dismissal 

for expedited, 

assessment. 

appeal, we assume plaintiffs could have 

of the § 7429 claims. Section 7429 

but limited, judicial review of an IRS 

See,~, Pals, 867 F.2d at 1163-64. The -- (continued on next page) 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1905 Document: 01019961721 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 3 
U.S. 463, 467 (1978). Because plaintiffs did not file a notice of 

appeal following the district court's June 25, 1986, order, this 

court does not have jurisdiction to review the June 15, 1985, 

order dismissing the § 7429 claims. See Browder v. Director, 

Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)(timely notice of 

appeal mandatory to establish appellate jurisdiction). 

Plaintiffs timely appealed from the district court's April 5, 

1988, order denying plaintiffs' request to reassert the § 7429 

claims. Because this court's remand did not address the§ 7429 

claims, the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs' 

request. 

The appeal of the district court order of June 15, 1985, 

dismissing plaintiffs' § 7429 claims is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction. The district court's April 5, 1988, 

(continued from previous page) 

statute provides for district court review of a jeopardy 

assessment to determine whether the assessment is reasonable and 

the amount of the assessment is appropriate. 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7429(b)(2). Further judicial review of the district court's 

determination is precluded. 26 U.S.C. § 7429(f). Where the 

district court dismisses a§ 7429 claim for procedural reasons, as 

in this case where the district court ruled it lacked jurisdiction 

under § 7429's limited review provisions to review plaintiffs' 

constitutional challenges to the assessment, the circuits are 

divided as to whether further judicial review is authorized. 

Compare,~, Zuluaga v. United States, 774 F.2d 1487, 1489 (9th 

Cir. 1985)(clear language of§ 7429(f) precludes review of "any 

determination" made by the district court in a§ 7429 proceeding) 

with,~, Meadows v. United States, 665 F.2d 1009, 1011-12 (11th 

Cir. 1982)(appellate court had jurisdiction to determine whether 

district court has authority to reach merits of§ 7429 claim). We 

do not address whether, and in what circumstances, an appeal may 

be taken from a district court's determination pursuant to§ 7429, 

but rather we assume, for purposes of this appeal, that if 

plaintiffs could have ever appealed the dismissal of their§ 7429 

claims, they cannot do so now. 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1905 Document: 01019961721 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 4 
,. 

• 

order denying plaintiffs' motion to reassert the§ 7429 claims is 

AFFIRMED. 

DENIED. 

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file appendices is 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-1905 Document: 01019961721 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 5