Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02648/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02648-8/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 - 06cv2648

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2648 JM(LSP)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

MOTION TO STAY ORDER OF

FORECLOSURE PENDING APPEAL 

vs.

KENDELL LANG; KENDELL LANG, as

Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

PATRICIA LANG; CASCADE

PROFESSIONAL TRUST, KENDELL

LANG, Trustee; WHITE MEMORIAL

MEDICAL CENTER; STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD,

Defendants.

Defendant Kendall Lang, in his individual capacity, as Personal Representative

of Patricia Lang, and as trustee of the Cascade Professional Trust, moves (1) for

reconsideration of this court’s July 25, 2008 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment )”Order”) and (2) to stay the July 25, 2008 Order of Foreclosure

pending appeal. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are denied.

Motion for Reconsideration

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. . . . There may also

be other, highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration." School Dist. N.

Case 3:06-cv-02648-JM-WVG Document 84 Filed 09/02/08 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 - 06cv2648

1J Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendant

essentially contends that the court erred in striking his cross-complaint because liberal

pleading policies applicable to individuals prosecuting cases in propria persona

permitted him to file the cross-complaint at issue seven months after expiration of the

deadline for filing such motions. The Order dismissed the cross-complaint as untimely,

prejudicial (because the cross-claims took the case in a different direction from the tax

claims), and unopposed. (Order at 18:14-26). The court denies the motion for

reconsideration because Defendant fails to identify any newly discovered evidence,

clear error, or intervening change in controlling law. 

In sum, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Motion to Stay Order of Foreclosure

In seeking to stay a judgment pending appeal, the “party must ordinarily move

first in the district court” before seeking relief from the appellate court. Fed.R.App.P.

8. Whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the court consider four factors: “(1) whether

the stay 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.” Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, 526 F.3d 406, 412 (9th Cir.

2008 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). The likelihood of

success and the irreparable injury factors are considered on “a sliding scale in which the

required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases.

Where the stay applicant demonstrates a strong likelihood of success, the possibility of

irreparable injury is sufficient to warrant a stay. On the other end of the sliding scale,

where the stay applicant demonstrates that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its

favor, the applicant must show only that it raises serious legal questions. The public

interest factor is considered “separately from and in addition to whether the applicant

for stay will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” Id. (Citations omitted).

Here, the court denies the motion for a stay for several reasons. First, Defendant

Case 3:06-cv-02648-JM-WVG Document 84 Filed 09/02/08 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 - 06cv2648

has not filed a Notice of Appeal as required by Fed.R.App. P. 3 and 4. Second, while

identifying substantial irreparable harm if his home is sold, Defendant has not set forth

any analysis in support of the likelihood of success on the merits element. Absent some

showing of the likelihood of success on the merits, a stay is not appropriate. See

Stormans, 526 F.3d at 412.

In sum, the court denies Defendant’s motions for reconsideration and to stay the

order of foreclosure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 2, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:06-cv-02648-JM-WVG Document 84 Filed 09/02/08 Page 3 of 3