Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00492/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00492-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1355 Petition for Return of Property

---

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

Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Pyle accepted jurisdiction then improperly denied him

a hearing. Instead, Judge Pyle denied Plaintiff a hearing because Judge Pyle recommended against

exercising jurisdiction over the Rule 41(g) motion. Regardless, this Court ruled, de novo, against

exercising its jurisdiction and, accordingly, denied the motion and entered Judgment. 

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen M. Trezza,

Plaintiff,

v.

United States of America,

Defendant. ______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 06-492 TUC DCB

AMENDED

ORDER

On October 18, 2006, this Court ruled after a de novo review of the Report and

Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Pyle and all the briefs filed by the parties

related to whether or not to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Rule 41(g) Motion for Return

of Property.1

 This Court determined that under the equitable factors set out in Ramsden v.

United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1990), the balance tipped against exercising

jurisdiction and denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

On October 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed an appeal, and he asks the Court to prevent the

Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigators

in Tucson from viewing the seized documents, pending the appeal.

As this Court noted in its ruling, the statute of limitations for one of the tax years

under investigation runs on April 15, 2007. Plaintiff's pre-indictment maneuvering has

delayed the investigation long enough. This Court is not persuaded that Trezza raises any

Case 4:06-cv-00492-DCB Document 80 Filed 11/09/06 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

serious legal questions or that he faces any irreparable harm. See United States v. Search of

Law Office, Residence and Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2003)

(damage to reputation from being indicted does not establish irreparable harm).

The Court finds no basis to prevent the AUSAs and IRS investigators in Tucson

from viewing the seized documents.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Maintain Status Quo Pending Appeal

(document 72) is DENIED.

DATED this 3rd day of November, 2006.

Case 4:06-cv-00492-DCB Document 80 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2