Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02176/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02176-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

2:05-cv-2176-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL CAREY; LEONE CAREY;

DOUGLAS CARPA and ROBERT

TALBOT (or their successor

trustees), as Trustees of the

RANCH HOLDING TRUST; MICHAEL

BLOOMQUIST (or his successor

trustee), as Trustee of the

HIDDEN MEADOWS HOLDING TRUST;

PAMELA GRAFF; PATRICIA WELCH

(aka PATRICIA KOERNER); STATE

of CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX

BOARD, and STATE of CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS,

Defendants.

______________________________

MICHAEL CAREY and LEONE CAREY,

Cross Claimants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

STATE of CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE

TAX BOARD,

Cross Defendants.

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 99 Filed 03/23/07 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Through the present action, the United States of America

(“United States”) seeks, inter alia, to foreclose federal tax

liens, plus penalties and interest, against certain real property

as provided by 26 U.S.C. § 7403. This action has been brought

against Michael and Leone Carey (“Careys”); Douglas Carpa and

Robert Talbot (both as trustees of the Ranch Holding Trust);

Michael Bloomquist (as trustee of the Hidden Meadows Holding

Trust); and various other Defendants.1

On April 28, 2006, Defendant Carpa, Trustee for Ranch

Holding Trust and Hidden Meadows Holding Trust, filed a Motion

for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 60(b)(1)

and (6). Defendant Carpa argues that he should be relieved from

the Court’s earlier Order striking his Answer on behalf of

Defendant Trusts because the Court erred and exceptional

circumstances warrant such relief. See Mem. & Order, April 20,

2006.

Rule 60(b) permits relief on from a “final judgement, order

or proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (emphasis added). 

Defendant Carpa is seeking relief under Rule 60 for an order

striking his Answer which clearly does not constitute a “final”

judgment as it is not sufficiently final to be appealed. Rule

60(b) does not govern relief from interlocutory orders, that is

to say any orders in which there is something left for the court

to decide after issuing the order. Here, there is much left to

decide as no final judgment has been entered to date.

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 99 Filed 03/23/07 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

Given the procedural defects of this Motion, the Court

hereby summarily DENIES the Motion without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02176-MCE-CMK Document 99 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 3