Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00960-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bill H. Brooke
Defendant
Estate of Shirley J. Brooke
Defendant
Lori J. Scott
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Proposed Order 1

DAVID A. HUBBERT

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

CHRISTIAN MEJIA

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683

Washington, D.C. 20044

202-305-7548 (v)

202-307-0054 (f)

Christian.Mejia@usdoj.gov

Counsel for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bill H. Brooke; Estate of Shirley J. Brooke; 

Lori J. Scott, Shasta County Treasurer-Tax 

Collector,

 

 Defendants.

No. 2:22-CV-00960-KJM-CSK

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON UNITED 

STATES’ UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO 

EXTEND DEADLINES SET FORTH IN 

COURT’S “ORDER AFTER STATUS 

CONFERENCE” (ECF No. 50) 

The United States has filed an “Unopposed Request to Extend Deadlines Set Forth in the 

Court’s ‘Order After Status Conference (ECF No. 50)’ (“Unopposed Request”). ECF No. 51. In 

consideration of the United States’ Unopposed Request, and for good cause shown, the Court 

ORDERS: 

(1) The Unopposed Request is hereby approved; 

(2) The parties shall continue to meet and confer to discuss resolution of the case; 

(3) The United States shall file a status report on or by July 24, 2024 updating the 

Court on the parties’ discussions; 

///

///

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 52 Filed 07/01/24 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

Proposed Order 2

(4) If during this time the parties are working in good faith towards resolving the 

case, the Court is likely to deny the United States’ motion for default judgment 

without prejudice; 

(5) Mr. Brooke has not yet filed a response to the Complaint. If the parties are not 

moving towards resolving the case, including if Mr. Brooke fails to meet and 

confer, Mr. Brooke’s response to the Complaint must be filed on or by August 

9, 2024; and 

(6) If the parties are not moving towards resolving the case and Mr. Brooke fails to 

file a response to the Complaint as ordered, Mr. Brooke is warned that his 

continued failure to follow court orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and/or the Court’s Local Rules could result in the imposition of a default 

judgment or other sanctions. 

Dated: June 28, 2024

 CHI SOO KIM 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00960-DC-CSK Document 52 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 2