Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00183/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00183-2/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

1

 A motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was filed, which the court has construed

as opposition to the motion to dismiss.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-0183 GEB KJM

vs.

DAVID LAUGENOUR, et al., ORDER AND 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the cross-claim came on regularly for hearing April

19, 2006. G. Patrick Jennings appeared telephonically for plaintiff. No appearances were made

for defendants and cross-plaintiffs David and Debra Laugenour. Upon review of the documents

in support and opposition,1 upon hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing

therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendants and cross-plaintiffs filed a cross-claim, suing federal employees as

individuals, alleging the cross-claim is brought under the authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964, which

provides a private right of action for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, an anti-racketeering statute. 

See Answer and cross-claim (docket no. 8) at 7:10-11. A Certification of Scope of Employment

Case 2:06-cv-00183-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 04/26/06 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

2

and Notice of Substitution was properly filed and the United States thus is the only defendant to

the cross-claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2679. The actions of the federal employees complained of here

involve collection of assessed tax liabilities, which cannot be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1962. Moreover, the instant cross-claim cannot be maintained because there has been no

waiver of sovereign immunity. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990). 

Defendants and cross-plaintiffs also noticed a motion for summary judgment on

the cross-claim for hearing on April 21, 2006. That date was not available on the law and motion

calendar for the undersigned and the hearing accordingly was vacated. In light of the

recommendation that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the cross-claim be granted, the motion for

summary judgment should be denied as moot.

In cross-plaintiffs’ opposition, cross-plaintiffs contend the undersigned should be

recused from this matter. Having carefully considered the matter, with reference to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455, the undersigned finds no basis for recusal.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the undersigned declines to recuse

herself from this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss David and Debra Laugenour’s cross-claim be

granted;

2. Cross-plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be denied as moot. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00183-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 04/26/06 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

3

“Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 25, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

usa-laugenour.cross.57

Case 2:06-cv-00183-GEB -KJM Document 38 Filed 04/26/06 Page 3 of 3