Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01689/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01689-41/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A bench trial was held on this case; findings of fact and conclusions of law were issued

which determined that Defendants Michael Ioane, Sr., Acacia Corporate Management LLC, and 

Mariposa Holdings Inc. (“Ioane Group”) have no legal interest in 5717 Roundup Way, 1927 21st

Street, and 5705 Muirfield Drive, all in Bakersfield, CA (“Subject Properties”). Doc. 212. The 

Subject Properties were collusively transferred by the Booths to the Defendants in a concerted 

effort to prevent the Plaintiff United States from selling them to satisfy certain tax liens. The 

United States sought entry of judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 58. Doc. 221. The Ioane 

Group made a motion for relief from a judgment under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 60(b) and for a stay of 

execution of judgment. Docs. 222 and 225. The court granted the United States’s request for entry 

of judgment and denied the Ioane Group’s request for a stay. Doc. 242. The United States now 

makes a motion to enforce judgment by selling the Subject Properties. Doc. 250. The Ioane 

Group opposes the motion and seeks a stay of judgment. Docs. 248 and 253. 

The propriety of a stay pending appeal depends on four factors “(1) whether the stay 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

VINCENT STEVEN BOOTH, LOUISE 

Q. BOOTH, MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, 

ACACIA CORPORATE 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, MARIPOSA 

HOLDINGS, INC., AND ALPHA 

ENTGERPRISES, LLC,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:09-CV-1689 AWI GSA 

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR STAY 

AND TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT

(Docs. 248, 250, and 253)

Case 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA Document 274 Filed 03/30/16 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

applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the 

applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will 

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest 

lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). The Ninth Circuit has weighed these factors 

using the same standard as that for granting a preliminary injunction. Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. 

City of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008). The U.S. Supreme Court has 

subsequently clarified that standard: “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the 

public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). 

Regarding the merits, the Ioane Group makes a number of arguments which cover the 

substance of the bench trial that was held. The evidence presented does not support their position. 

However, the Ioane Group also makes a number of arguments that go beyond this case. First, the 

Ioane Group persists in asserting that a settlement agreement between the Booths and the Ioane 

Group in Civ. Case No. 07-1129 definitively determined ownership of the Subject Properties and 

has res judicata effect. Doc. 253, 7:15-8:14. This argument has been rejected numerous times as 

final judgment was never entered on the settlement and the Ioane Group voluntarily dismissed 

their claims against the Booths in that case. See, e.g. Doc. 242. Additionally, the Ioane Group 

asserts that Michael Ioane, Sr. was wrongfully convicted in his criminal case: “the Government is 

merely holding the Subject Properties for the Booths’ benefit in exchange for their perjured 

testimony. The conspiracy to take the Subject Properties away from, the Ioane Group, or Acacia, 

based on the plea agreement between the Government and the Booths in the related criminal trial, 

makes them ‘in pari delicto’, and prevents this Court from declaring legal title held by Acacia as 

void.” Doc. 259, 5:2-6. This is a serious accusation for which the Ioane Group provides no 

convincing support and is more properly part of Michael Ioane, Sr.’s criminal appeal or habeas 

corpus petition. 

The Ioane Group asserts that they would be irreparably harmed if the Subject Properties 

are sold as they have no right to redemption. The “loss of an interest in real property constitutes 

Case 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA Document 274 Filed 03/30/16 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

an irreparable injury.” Park Vill. Apt. Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 

1159 (9th Cir. 2011). While there would be monetary recompense if the Ioane Group were to 

prevail on appeal, the Subject Properties themselves would be lost. 

The other interested parties are the Booths, United States, and the State of California. The 

Booths require execution of the judgment in order to satisfy mounting federal and state tax 

liabilities. The United States points out that the total assessed value of the Subject Properties is 

$1,077,000.00 while the tax amounts owed to the United States and the State of California add up 

to $1,005,695.64 with additional interest accruing. Doc. 254, 4:3-13. With forced sale of the 

Subject Properties providing no guarantee that the full market value will be realized, the United

States asks for a supercedeas bond. The Ioane Group argues that the real property securing the 

judgment is sufficient and is unwilling to provide a bond to make up any shortfall. Doc. 259, 9:6-

11:3. This refusal leaves the other interested parties at risk as the amount owed grows with 

interest. 

The Ioane Group points out that “The public interest lies with protecting due process.” 

United States v. Moyer, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63995, *35 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The public interest 

aspect of this motion is limited. 

On balance, while the Ioane Group is likely to suffer irreparable harm, there is a low 

likelihood of successful appeal and the balance of equities tips against them. A stay is not 

warranted in this case. 

Plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment is GRANTED. Defendants’ motions for stay are 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01689-AWI-GSA Document 274 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3