Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02648/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02648-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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 - 06cv2648

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2648 JM(LSP)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER 

vs.

KENDELL LANG; KENDELL LANG, as

Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

PATRICIA LANG; CASCADE

PROFESSIONAL TRUST, KENDELL

LANG, Trustee; WHITE MEMORIAL

MEDICAL CENTER; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD,

Defendants.

Defendant Kendall Lang, in his individual capacity, as Personal Representative of Patricia

Lang, and as trustee of the Cascade Professional Trust, moves the court ex parte to set a minimum bid

of $1,150,000, instead of $800,000, for the public auction sale of real property located at 2605 Lone

Jack Road. The Internal Revenue Service has scheduled the auction sale for September 29, 2009. 

In order to grant the relief requested, a party must satisfy one of two tests: (1) a combination

of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) the party raises serious

questions and the balance of hardship tips in its favor. Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819

F.2d 935, 937 (9th Cir. 1987). "These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in

which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases." Id.

Under both formulations, however, the party must demonstrate a "fair chance of success on the merits"

Case 3:06-cv-02648-JM-WVG Document 91 Filed 09/29/09 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 1

 The court also notes that the auction sale has been scheduled for several weeks (or months)

yet Defendant waited until the day before the sale to request relief.

- 2 - 06cv2648

and a "significant threat of irreparable injury." Id.

The court denies Defendant’s motion for two reasons. First, Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) provides that

a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) may be granted without notice only if (1) the movant

demonstrates that he or she will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before the adverse party can

be heard in opposition, and (2) the movant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any,

which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be

required. Defendant fails to establish that he gave notice to Plaintiff, or any other interested party, and

fails to describe the efforts taken to provide notice to Plaintiff.1 The stringent requirements of Rule

65(b) recognize that “our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before

reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny

Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39 (1974). Accordingly,

Defendant fails to establish that Rule 65(b) relief is appropriate under the circumstances.

Second, Defendant fails to make the requisite showing of likelihood of success on the merits

and irreparable harm. On the merits, Defendant declares his belief that potential buyers presented an

offer in the amount of $1,150,000 and therefore this court should set this amount as the minimum

opening bid. (Land Decl. ¶3). There is no admissible evidence that such an offer was ever made or

that the offer contained contingencies. Moreover, there is no evidence that the $1,150,000 amount

reflects the market value of the property. Defendant also fails to establish irreparable harm - the fact

that the property will be sold at a reserve auction, does not establish that the reserve price is the

equivalent of the ultimate sale price of the property. 

In sum, the motion for a TRO is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-02648-JM-WVG Document 91 Filed 09/29/09 Page 2 of 2