Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03722/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03722-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

JEAN-SEBASTIEN BLOT,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-3722 EMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

CONTEMPT

(Docket No. 13)

Petitioners have filed an application to reopen the case and have asked for the issuance of an

order to show cause regarding contempt. Having reviewed the application, the Court hereby grants

the requested relief.

Petitioners initiated this litigation seeking enforcement of an IRS summons in August 2009. 

Both Petitioners and Respondent consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) (providing that, “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate

judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of

judgment in the case”); Docket Nos. 4, 11 (consent). The parties ultimately stipulated to a dismissal

of the case after they reached an agreement that Respondent would provide the documents requested

in the IRS summons. See Docket No. 12 (stipulation and order). As part of the stipulation, the

parties also agreed that the case could be reopened “by either party should any disagreement arise

regarding whether respondent has fully complied with the summons.” Docket No. 12 (Stip. ¶ 5).

Case 3:09-cv-03722-EMC Document 15 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

According to Petitioners, Respondent has failed to fully comply with the summons, thus

necessitating the request to reopen the case. Petitioners have provided evidence to support their

contention that there has been a failure to comply. See Newman Decl. ¶ 5. The Court therefore

grants Petitioners’ request that the case be reopened, consistent with the terms of the parties’

stipulation.

In their papers, Petitioners have also asked for the issuance of an order to show cause

regarding contempt. More specifically, Petitioners have asked that the undersigned conduct a

hearing as to whether Respondent should be held in contempt, thereafter certify facts to a district

judge regarding the contempt issue, and finally require Respondent to appear before the district

judge to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii). The Court need not follow the procedure contained in §

636(e)(6)(B)(iii) because, in this case, the parties have consented to proceeding before a magistrate

judge and Petitioners appear to be asking for civil contempt only. Therefore, § 636(e)(4) is

applicable. See id. § 636(e)(4) (providing that, “[i]n any case in which a United States magistrate

judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, . . . the magistrate

judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court”). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby issues on its own authority an order to show cause. 

Respondent is ordered to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to

produce documents responsive to the IRS summons by the agreed-upon date (i.e., January 30, 2010). 

See Docket No. 12 (Stip. ¶ 1). By April 21, 2010, Respondent may file a brief and any supporting

evidence (e.g., a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury) to show why he should not be held

in contempt. The Court shall hold a hearing as to whether Respondent should be held in contempt

on May 5, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:09-cv-03722-EMC Document 15 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Petitioners are ordered to serve a copy of this order on Respondent so that it is received no

later than March 31, 2010. Service shall be made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03722-EMC Document 15 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 3