Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02138-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GARY BAXTER AND PATRICIA 

MARY BAXTER, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-02138-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 47 

The Baxters brought this action seeking to challenge defendants’ use of the National 

Research Program (“NRP”) to audit plaintiffs as an invalid and unconstitutional exercise of the 

IRS’s authority. The Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 43.) 

The Baxters now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order. 

(Dkt. No. 47 (“Mtn.”).) The Court having carefully considered the papers submitted, the 

pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth below, DENIES the Baxters’ motion. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The facts at issue in this case are well-known to the parties and were summarized 

previously by the Court in its prior orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 26. and 43.) The Baxters now move for 

reconsideration of the order granting motion to dismiss on two grounds, namely: (1) a manifest 

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to 

the Court before such interlocutory order, and (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change 

of law occurring after the time of such order. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir.1993). Local Rule 7–9(b) requires that a party seeking leave to file a motion for 

Case 4:15-cv-02138-YGR Document 50 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

reconsideration show reasonable diligence in making the motion and one of the following: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must 

show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for 

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory 

order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time 

of such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7–9(c), “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may 

repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to 

the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Reconsideration of a 

prior ruling is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of 

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. DISCUSSION 

The Baxters contend that the Court erred in failing to consider material facts and 

dispositive legal arguments. However, their arguments are unpersuasive. The motion is based 

entirely on arguments that either were or could have been presented to the Court in support of their 

opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss. The Baxters have failed to satisfy their burden. 

Furthermore, the Baxters contend that new facts have arisen warranting leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration. Specifically, plaintiffs received a notice of Income Tax Examination 

Changes from the IRS assessing over $1 million in taxes, penalties for fraud, and interest. In 

addition, they assert that the IRS advised Mr. Baxter that the 2012 and 2013 audits were deemed 

research audits after the Baxters asserted their constitutional rights. The receipt of this 

information cannot alter the Court’s decision that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Reconsideration is therefore inappropriate on these grounds as well.1 

// 

 1

 As the Court previously noted, the Baxters’ remedies include petitioning the Tax Court 

for a redetermination of the deficiency and suing for a refund in the Court of Federal Claims. 

(Dkt. No. 43 at 8:7-12.) 

Case 4:15-cv-02138-YGR Document 50 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

IV. CONCLUSION

 Based upon the foregoing, the Baxters’ motion is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 

Number 47. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-02138-YGR Document 50 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3