Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00151/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-mc-00151-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 871
Nature of Suit: IRS 3rd Party Suits 26 USC 7609 (U.S. plaintiff)
Cause of Action: 26:7609 IRS: Petition to Quash IRS Summons

---

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

KOBRA RESTAURANT PROPERTIES,

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIBANK USA N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-mc-00151-DAD-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH, AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 1, 4, 8)

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

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

Citibank USA N.A. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

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

On October 2, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to quash be summarily denied and this case be closed. 

(Doc. No. 8.) In particular, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff was not entitled to notice of 

the collection summons in this case because the summons was issued in aid of the collection of an 

assessment made by the IRS, and that the IRS is exempted from providing notice under such 

circumstances under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i). (Id. at 3.) For the same reasons, the 

magistrate judge also recommended that defendant United States’s motion for summary dismissal 

Case 2:24-mc-00151-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 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

of plaintiff’s motion to quash service (Doc. No. 4) be granted. (Doc. No. 8 at 4.) 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 4.) 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 October 2, 2024 (Doc. No. 8) are 

adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff’s 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: December 20, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-mc-00151-DAD-JDP Document 9 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2