Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00743-5/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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(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NOT FOR CITATION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 No. C 05-00743 JF

ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION

On March 30, 2006, this Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff United States of

America and issued a decree of sale for property in the possession of Defendants Felix K.

Prakasam and Liliana P. Prakasam. On July 5, 2006, this Court denied Defendants’ motion for

reconsideration of its March 30, 2006 Order. Defendants have received a letter from Plaintiff,

dated June 8, 2006, instructing them that they must vacate the property, which is their personal

residence, by July 31, 2006. 

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

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 42 Filed 07/17/06 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

Case No. C 05-00743 JF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

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

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

summary judgment for Plaintiff. While the Court understands that it will cause harm and loss to

Defendants for them to vacate their residence, this Court cannot consider repetitive motions for

reconsideration. Accordingly, the instant motion is denied. If Defendants 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 17, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

Case 5:05-cv-00743-JF Document 42 Filed 07/17/06 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 No. C 05-00743 JF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

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

Dean A. Christopherson dac@calaw.com

Thomas Moore tom.moore@usdoj.gov

Jay R. Weill jay.weill@usdoj.gov

John W. Davies

Tax Counsel III, Supervisor

Franchise Tax Board

P.O. Box 1720

Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-1720

Carissa Lynch

Franchise Tax Board

Tax Counsel

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 and 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 42 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3