Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08193/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1340 Recovery of Erroneous Refund

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sheila Young; Deane Young; Kennith

Defoor; Accurate Consulting, LLC; and

D4 Accounting, Consulting, Tax

Services, Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8193-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The United States filed a complaint for injunctive relief on October 4, 2010, alleging

Defendants promote fraudulent tax schemes and have prepared hundreds of frivolous tax

returns resulting in the issuance of more than two million dollars in erroneous refunds.

Doc. 1. On October 15, 2010, each individual Defendant filed an “affidavit of notary

presentment.” Docs. 5, 6, 7. The government construes those documents as motions to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and has filed a response. Doc. 10. No reply has been filed,

and no party has requested oral argument.

Although the individual Defendants are proceeding pro se, they “must follow the same

rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1986). Defendants appear to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction in their affidavits, but do not

seek dismissal pursuant to any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Court clearly

has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal tax case. See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3-4; 28 U.S.C. §§

1340, 1345; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7407, 7408. The Court has personal jurisdiction over

Case 3:10-cv-08193-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/09/10 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 -

Defendants as they are residents or citizens of Arizona. See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 6-10; Docs. 5, 6, 7

at 2. Defendants’ affidavits will be denied to the extent they seek dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction.

The Court declines the government’s invitation to deem all Defendants as having been

served with process. Doc. 10 at 2. The government shall effect service of process as

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The individual Defendants are advised that if they wish to proceed pro se, they must

become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). See King, 814 F.2d

at 567; Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not

be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm’r of

Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [a litigant] is

expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website: www.law.cornell.

edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained in

the Clerk’s Office and are available online at the Court’s Internet website: www.azd.

uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled “Opinions/Orders/Rules”). All motions and other filing

must comply fully with the Court’s local rules, including the rules governing the form of

papers (LRCiv 7.1) and page limits (LRCiv 7.2).

The corporate Defendants may appear in this case only through licensed counsel. See

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202

(1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may

appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.”) (citing Osborn v. President of Bank

of U.S., 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824)); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates,

Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule that ‘corporations and

other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.’”) (alteration and

citation omitted); In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations

and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); United

Case 3:10-cv-08193-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/09/10 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 -

States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a

corporation’s president and sole shareholder could not make an “end run around” the counsel

requirement by intervening pro se rather than retaining counsel to represent the corporation).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Affidavits of Notary Presentment (Docs. 5, 6, 7) are denied to the

extent they may be construed as motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

2. The government shall effect service of process as required by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08193-DGC Document 11 Filed 12/09/10 Page 3 of 3