Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00573/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00573-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT ARGUMENT

C09-573 RMW

TER

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 4/5/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Todd R. Ford,

Plaintiff,

v.

Anthony Michael Cicoletti,

Defendant.

No. C-09-00573 RMW

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES TO BE

ADDRESSED AT ARGUMENT

The case is set for further hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss on April 9, 2010 at 9:00

a.m. The court requests that counsel address the following questions at the hearing:

1. The papers and oral argument focused on subrogation and the question of whether Ford

was subrogated to the rights of the IRS and EDD. The critical question addressed was whether Ford

was precluded from subrogation because he was primarily liable (along with Cicoletti) for the debt. 

Why was the focus on subrogation rather than contribution?

2. Assuming there had been no bankruptcy, would not Ford have a right to contribution

under 26 U.S.C. §6672(d)?

Case 5:09-cv-00573-RMW Document 49 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT ARGUMENT

C09-573 RMW

TER 2

3. When did Ford acquire his right to contribution? When he paid more than 50% of the

tax? If so, then didn't Ford acquire his right to contribution post-discharge and, therefore, the debt is

not a discharged debt?

4. Tax debts are not dischargeable but do they have to be listed? What effect does the fact

that Cicoletti did not list the IRS obligation have, if any, on that obligation?

5. Does this case boil down to the effect of Cicoletti's discharge? If so, why shouldn't the

case be referred to the bankruptcy judge?

DATED: 4/5/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-00573-RMW Document 49 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT ARGUMENT

C09-573 RMW

TER 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Christopher K. Karic ckk@robinsonwood.com

Cyndi J. Claxton cjc@robinsonwood.com

Joshua Borger jjb@robinsonwood.com

Michael St. James ecf@stjames-law.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Kathryn S. Diemer kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/5/10 TER

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:09-cv-00573-RMW Document 49 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 3