Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00150/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00150-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRAVANEH ALIZADEH and PARVA 

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA and UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants,

No. 2:24-mc-0150 DAD DB

ORDER

On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs, proceeding through counsel, filed a motion to quash a 

summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7609. (ECF No. 1-1.) 

The motion was noticed for hearing before the undersigned on June 14, 2024, pursuant to Local 

Rule 302(c)(10). On May 20, 2024, defendant United States of America filed a motion to 

summarily deny plaintiffs’ motion to quash and noticed it for hearing before the undersigned on 

June 28, 2024. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiffs, however, failed to file a timely opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to defendants’ motion in violation of Local Rule 230(c). 

Accordingly, on June 7, 2024, the undersigned issued plaintiffs an order to show cause. 

(ECF No. 5.) Plaintiffs were ordered to “show cause in writing as to why this case should not be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution.” Id. at 2. Moreover, because it appeared that plaintiffs may 

Case 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR Document 8 Filed 06/26/24 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

have previously brought similar actions—see Alizadeh v. CitiBank USA N.A., No. 2:24-mc-0043 

DAD AC, 2024 WL 1722419 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2024); Alizadeh v. MUFG Union Bank N.A., 

No. 2:23-mc-0122 DAD AC, 2023 WL 3721104, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 30, 2023)—plaintiffs’ 

counsel was directed to “address any prior motions brought by plaintiffs raising similar arguments 

as those raised here.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.) 

On June 17, 2024, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendant’s motion to summarily deny 

plaintiffs’ petition to quash. (ECF No. 6.) This filing by plaintiffs’ counsel does not address any 

of the prior actions brought by plaintiffs. Nor does it address why plaintiffs failed to timely file 

an opposition. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ counsel show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order 

as to why plaintiffs’ counsel should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with an order of this 

court;

2. Any response by plaintiffs’ counsel shall address: (1) the cause of plaintiffs’ failure to 

timely file an opposition; and (2) any prior action involving a plaintiff raising arguments similar 

to those raised here and how that prior action was resolved; 

3. Defendant shall file a response to plaintiffs’ counsel’s filing within fourteen days 

thereafter; 

4. The June 28, 2024 hearing of plaintiffs’ motion to quash (ECF No. 1) and defendant’s 

motion to summarily deny (ECF No. 4) are continued to Friday, August 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., 

at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, 

and;

5. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in 

the recommendation that this case be dismissed.

Dated: June 25, 2024

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/alizadeh.osc2.cont.hrg

Case 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR Document 8 Filed 06/26/24 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

Case 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR Document 8 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 3