Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01631/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01631-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner 

v. 

BRIAN E. TORRANCE, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:18-cv-1631-JAM-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On August 8, 2019, the undersigned recommended the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) 

tax summons served upon respondent Brian Torrance be enforced.1 ECF No. 20. In response, 

Torrance filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 23) and a motion to 

dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction (ECF No. 24). Thereafter, the assigned district judge 

adopted the October 8 findings and recommendations, ordered the IRS summons enforced, and 

directed Torrance to appear before Revenue Agent David Palmer for examination. ECF No. 25. 

Torrance’s motion to dismiss remains pending, however. 

 Torrance’s motion to dismiss merely rehashes his prior argument that this court lacks 

jurisdiction because the summons was not properly issued and served by Agent Palmer. That 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-JAM-JDP Document 28 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

argument has already been rejected (ECF Nos. 20 & 25), and Torrance has failed to demonstrate 

any basis for reconsidering the court’s prior order.2

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF 

No. 24) be denied. 

 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 fourteen 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 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: February 4, 2020. 

 2

 After the court ordered enforcement of the IRS summons, Torrance filed a motion to 

alter or amend the enforcement order. ECF No. 26. That motion, which also argued that the 

court lacks jurisdiction, was denied. ECF No. 27. 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-JAM-JDP Document 28 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2