Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05838/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05838-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5838 PJH

v. ORDER RE BRIEFING

RE PENDING MOTIONS

LOUIS G. BEARY, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On May 31, 2007, the court issued an order establishing a briefing schedule with

respect to numerous motions filed the parties and currently pending before the court. 

Those motions include several filed by defendant Louis Beary, as well as a motion to

dismiss defendant Beary’s cross-claim, filed by the state government entity crossdefendants (a similar motion to dismiss defendant Beary’s cross-claim has also been filed

by the federal government entity plaintiff and cross-defendant). Pursuant to the court’s

order, opposition briefs to all motions were due for filing no later than June 13, 2007, and

reply briefs to all motions were due no later than June 20, 2007. The court’s review of the

docket, however, reveals that despite these court-ordered deadlines, briefing on the

motions is either tardy, or remains incomplete. 

Specifically, the docket reveals:

1. With respect to defendant Beary’s numerous motions, the federal

government’s opposition, which was due June 13, was not filed until June 25, 2007 (the

state government entity’s opposition brief was timely filed). Although the federal

government has filed an administrative request seeking leave to file its opposition brief

belatedly, this request was not made until June 28, 2007. Furthermore, and perhaps due

Case 4:06-cv-05838-PJH Document 94 Filed 07/03/07 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

2

to the government’s tardy filing, defendant Beary has failed to timely file any reply brief. 

2. With respect to the motions to dismiss defendant Beary’s cross-claim, filed by

both the federal and state government cross-defendants, to date no opposition brief has

been filed by defendant Beary to either motion, nor have any reply briefs subsequently

been filed by either of the government entity cross-defendants. 

Moreover, two additional motions are pending before the court, although not

discussed in the court’s May 31 order, neither of which is completely briefed. First, on May

16, 2007, the federal government filed a motion to strike defendant Beary’s answer. To

date, however, defendant Beary has failed to file any opposition brief to the motion,

although he did file an “amended answer” on June 13, 2007. No motion to strike or other

response to defendant Beary’s “amended answer,” has been filed. Second, on June 13,

2007, defendant Beary filed a motion to dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit against

him. The federal government filed an opposition brief on June 25, 2007. To date, however,

defendant Beary has failed to file any reply, although pursuant to the normal 35-day briefing

schedule set forth in civil local rules 7-2 and 7-3, he has until July 5, 2007, in which to do

so. 

Despite the fact that briefing is either tardy or incomplete with respect to all of the

above, in the interests of giving the parties the fullest opportunity to be heard and the court

the benefit of fully briefed motions, the court will nonetheless grant the parties limited

additional time in which to file their outstanding briefs. Specifically, the court orders as

follows: 

1. No later than July 11, 2007, defendant Beary shall file a reply brief in support

of his numerous motions filed May 11, 2007. In so holding, the court also

GRANTS the federal government’s request to file a belated opposition brief,

although it places counsel on notice that no further requests for belated filings

will be granted unless supported by good cause. 

2. No later than July 11, 2007, defendant Beary shall file an opposition brief to

Case 4:06-cv-05838-PJH Document 94 Filed 07/03/07 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

3

both the federal and state government entities’ motions to dismiss defendant

Beary’s cross-claim. The federal and state government entities shall file any

reply briefs no later than July 18, 2007. 

3. No later than July 11, 2007, defendant Beary shall file an opposition brief to

the federal government’s motion to strike defendant Beary’s answer,

explaining, if appropriate, how his “amended answer” cures the deficiencies

noted in the government’s motion to strike. The federal government shall file

any reply brief no later than July 18, 2007.

4. Defendant Beary shall have until July 11, 2007, to file any reply brief in

support of his motion to dismiss the federal government’s action against him. 

The court furthermore cautions the parties that failure to file their supporting briefs

as instructed shall be grounds for treating opposing parties’ arguments as conceded, where

appropriate. 

With respect to all other motions filed by the parties, all briefing shall be in

accordance with the regular 35-day notice schedule provided for in the local rules. 

Moreover, as instructed at the case management conference held on May 17, 2007, no

hearing will be held on any motion filed by the parties, with the exception of summary

judgment motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05838-PJH Document 94 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3