Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00150/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00150-3/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

PARVA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 

LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH, AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 1, 4, 17)

On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a motion to quash service of 

summons issued by the United States Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to plaintiff’s bank, Bank 

of America N.A. (Doc. No. 1.) This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 12, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that plaintiffs’ motion to quash be summarily denied and this 

case be closed. (Doc. No. 17.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiffs were not 

entitled to notice of the collection summons in this case because it was issued in aid of the 

collection of an assessment made by the IRS, and that therefore plaintiffs did not have standing to 

challenge the summons. (Id. at 4); see 26 U.S.C. § 7609 (recognizing persons who are entitled to 

notice of summons to “have the right to begin a proceeding to quash such summons”). For the 

Case 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR Document 18 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 2
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

same reasons, the magistrate judge also recommended that defendant United States’s motion for 

summary dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to quash service (Doc. No. 4) be granted. (Doc. No. 17

at 5.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 

5–6.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 12, 2024 (Doc. No. 17) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to quash (Doc. No. 1) is denied;

3. Defendant United States’s motion for summary dismissal (Doc. No. 4) is granted;

4. This action is dismissed; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-mc-00150-DAD-SCR Document 18 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 2