Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743-6/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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

(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NOT FOR CITATION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 Number C 05-00743 JF

ORDER1 CONFIRMING SALE

[re: docket no. 45]

Plaintiff United States of America moves for an order confirming sale of property located

at 1174 San Diego Drive, Salinas, California (“the property”). Defendants Felix K. Prakasam

and Liliana P. Prakasam oppose the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will

grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2006, this Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff and issued a

decree of sale of the property. On July 5, 2006, this Court denied Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration (“July 5th Order”). 

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 50 Filed 12/22/06 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

(JFLC1)

On July 14, 2006, Defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a “Motion to dismiss action and

set aside summary judgment and decree for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for emergency

ex parte motion to enforce the automatic stay as provided by statute and to enjoin the

enforcement of the decree of sale.” Defendants asked again that this Court reconsider its grant of

summary judgment for Plaintiff. On July 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion (“July 17th

Order”). The Court explained that while it understood “that it will cause harm and loss to

Defendants for them to vacate their residence, [it] cannot consider repetitive motions for

reconsideration.” July 17th Order 2. The Court instructed Defendants that if they believe “that

this Court’s ruling is erroneous, they must seek relief in the Court of Appeals; no further motions

or requests for reconsideration will be entertained.” Id. On August 18, 2006, Defendants filed

notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff states that on August 30, September 6, September 13, and September 20, 2006,

notice of the sale of the property at public auction was published in The Herald, a Montgomery

County newspaper. Plaintiff also states that on September 21, 2006, the property was sold at

public auction at the Monterey County Courthouse for a sale price of $600,000 (“the sale”). 

Plaintiff states that the purchasers deposited $10,000 with the United States Marshals pending

confirmation of the sale by the Court.

On November 15, 2006, Plaintiff moved to confirm the sale of the property. Defendants

objected to the sale on eight bases: (1) this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; (2)

Defendants have a pending Collection Due Process Hearing pursuant to IRC, Section 6330,

which Plaintiff has not denied; (3) Defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to new

facts and issues that Plaintiff raised in its reply; (4) the assessment and tax lien which Plaintiff

relies upon in its enforcement action are time barred; (5) the IRS accepted Defendants’ Amended

Tax Return for 1997, filed on September 23, 2003, pursuant to the “Stipulation [sic] Settled

Issues;” (6) after accepting Defendants’ Amended Tax Return for 1997, Plaintiff issued

Defendants legal notice of disallowance of a refund for $6,664.00 on their 1996 taxes; (7)

Plaintiff failed to issue a mandatory Notice of a Federal Tax Lien to Defendants; and (8) Plaintiff

failed to issue a mandatory Notice and Demand to Defendants.

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 50 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 As stated above, the eight grounds argued by Defendants are that: (1) this Court lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) Defendants have a pending Collection Due Process Hearing

pursuant to IRC, Section 6330, which Plaintiff has not denied; (3) Defendants did not have an

opportunity to respond to new facts and issues that Plaintiff raised in its reply; (4) the assessment

and tax lien which Plaintiff relies upon in its enforcement action are time barred, (5) the IRS

accepted Defendants’ Amended Tax Return for 1997, filed on September 23, 2003, pursuant to

the “Stipulation Settled Issues;” (6) after accepting Defendants’ Amended Tax Return for 1997,

Plaintiff issued Defendants legal notice of disallowance of a refund for $6,664.00 on their 1996

taxes; (7) Plaintiff failed to issue a mandatory Notice of a Federal Tax Lien to Defendants; and

(8) Plaintiff failed to issue a mandatory Notice and Demand to Defendants.

3

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

(JFLC1)

The Court heard oral argument on December 22, 2006. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 2001(a) provides that

[a]ny realty or interest therein sold under any order or decree of any court of the

United States shall be sold as a whole or in separate parcels at public sale at the

courthouse of the county, parish, or city in which the greater part of the property is

located, or upon the premises or some parcel thereof located therein, as the court

directs. Such sale shall be upon such terms and conditions as the court directs.

Notice of a public sale must be given pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2002, which provides that

[a] public sale of realty or interest therein under any order, judgment or decree of

any court of the United States shall not be made without notice published once a

week for at least four weeks prior to the sale in at least one newspaper regularly

issued and of general circulation in the county, state, or judicial district of the

United States wherein the realty is situated.

III. DISCUSSION

1. Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Sale

Notice of the sale was published once a week for four weeks as required by 28 U.S.C. §

2002. Nothing in the manner in which the sale was conducted appears to conflict with 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2001-2002. Defendants do not object to the form of the sale or the notice preceding the sale. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the sale conforms with the applicable statutory

requirements.

2. Objections to Sale on Other Grounds

As noted above, Defendants object to the sale on eight grounds2 which pertain to the

substantive legal arguments they have made throughout this case, rather than to any specific

objection to the form of the sale or the notice given prior to the sale. Defendants have argued

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 50 Filed 12/22/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

(JFLC1)

many of these grounds before the Court previously. The Court rejected five of the arguments by

Defendants in denying the motion for reconsideration: 

(1) Defendants did not have an opportunity to respond to new facts and issues that

Plaintiff brought up in its reply supporting its motion for summary judgment; (2)

the assessment and tax lien on which Plaintiff bases its enforcement action are

time barred; (3) this Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce a tax lien and assessment

that is time barred; (4) because the IRS has accepted Defendant’s Amended Tax

Return for 1997, filed on September 23, 2003, Defendants owe no taxes; however,

Plaintiff has misrepresented that the tax assessment was valid when it was in fact

void; and (5) Defendants have filed a request for a Collection Due Process

Hearing.

July 5th Order 2. These five arguments overlap almost perfectly with the first six grounds that

defendants argue in opposition to the instant motion. Additionally, Defendants provide no legal

authority holding that, even if true, the two remaining asserted bases in opposition to the motion

support a finding that Defendants have no tax liability or provide a basis for reconsidering the

Court’s earlier orders in this case.

As the Court indicated in its July 17th Order, the Defendants’ remedy for any perceived

error in the Court’s decisions lies with the Ninth Circuit, not in repeated motions for

reconsideration. Defendants may not use their opposition to this motion as a vehicle by which to

argue again for reconsideration. The Court will not deny the motion on grounds previously

argued or grounds which otherwise pertain to the substantive legal rights, claims, and defenses

previously litigated in this case.

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to confirm

sale is GRANTED.

DATED: December 22, 2006.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 50 Filed 12/22/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Case No. C 05-00743 JF

ORDER CONFIRMING SALE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

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

Dean A. Christopherson dac@calaw.com 

Carissa Lynch denise.sutherland@ftb.ca.gov 

Thomas Moore tom.moore@usdoj.gov 

Jay R. Weill jay.weill@usdoj.gov 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

John W. Davies 

Tax Counsel III, Supervisor

Franchise Tax Board

P.O. Box 1720

Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-1720

Nova Dean Pack 

Attorney at Law

5005 La Mart Drive

Suite 201

Reverside, CA 92507

Felix Kelly Prakasam

2048 Orange Tree, Suite 100

Redlands, Ca 92374

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 50 Filed 12/22/06 Page 5 of 5