Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

---

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

 Defendants’ motion appears to be more similar to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59

motion than a Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, when it considers the merits of the motion, the

Court may construe it as having been brought pursuant to Rule 59.

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FELIX KELLY PRAKASAM, et al.

 Defendants.

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

On May 1, 2006, Defendants Felix K. Prakasam and Liliana P. Prakasam, proceeding pro

se, filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)1 for reconsideration of this

Court’s Order dated March 30, 2006, granting summary judgment for Plaintiff. Oral argument

for this motion is currently scheduled for June 16, 2006. Plaintiff’s counsel has not yet filed

opposition to the motion apparently because counsel believed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9,

that leave of Court was required to file a motion for reconsideration. However, Local Rule 7-9

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 05-00743 JF 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

applies only to motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders entered prior to final

judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file opposition to the instant motion by June 9, 2006. 

Defendants shall file any reply by June 16, 2006. The hearing scheduled for June 16, 2006 shall

be vacated and the Court will consider the matter without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b). If the Court later determines that oral argument is necessary, a new hearing date

will be scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 05-00743 JF 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Kathleen A. Andleman kathleen.andleman@ftb.ca.gov,

Dean A. Christopherson dac@calaw.com

Thomas Moore tom.moore@usdoj.gov

Jay R. Weill jay.weill@usdoj.gov

John W. Davies

Tax Counsel III, Supervisor

Franchise Tax Board

P.O. Box 1720

Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-1720

Carissa Lynch

Franchise Tax Board

Tax Counsel

P.O. Box 1720

Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-1720

Nova Dean Pack

Attorney at Law

5005 La Mart Drive

Suite 201

Reverside, CA 92507

Dean A. Christopherson

Dawe & Christopherson LLP

1111 Civic Drive

Suite 380

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Felix Kelly and Liliana P. Prakasam

2048 Orange Tree, Suite 100

Redlands, CA 92374

Kevin V. Ryan

United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue

P.O. Box 36055

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3