Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00632/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00632-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry S. Halajian
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

BARRY S. HALAJIAN, 

Respondent.

1:15-CV-00632-LJO-EPG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PERMIT 

ALTERNATE PROCESS SERVICE

(Doc. 14)

I. Introduction

On September 21, 2015, the United States of America (“Petitioner” or “government”) filed a Notice 

and Motion to Permit Alternate Process Service, requesting the Court‟s permission to serve process 

upon the Respondent Barry Halajian (“Respondent”) by means other than those allowed by Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(e). (Doc. 14). Specifically, the government requests that the Court find its prior service attempts 

including sending the IRS summons and related documents by regular and certified mail to 

Respondent‟s place of business, and to his designated Power of Attorney, sufficient in light of the 

Respondent‟s alleged attempts at evasion of service.

The Court held a hearing on the motion on October 23, 2015. Assistant United States Attorney, 

Bobbie J. Montoya, appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Investigating Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses 

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 7
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

also was present. Respondent did not appear at the hearing. At the hearing, the Court requested 

additional briefing to clarify the previous service attempts made, which the government filed on 

November 6, 2015. (Docs. 22-24). After considering all of the above pleadings and the arguments 

presented at the hearing, Petitioner‟s Motion to Permit Alternate Service Process is GRANTED nunc 

pro tunc.

II. Background

On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce an Internal Revenue Service summons 

directed to respondent Barry Halajian. (Doc, 1). The summons was issued on July 30, 2014, and ordered 

the release of information needed to collect assessed federal income taxes (Form 940) for the calendar 

period ending December 31, 2010 and (Form 941) for the quarterly periods ending December 31, 2012, 

March 31, 2013, and June 30, 2013. The assessed balance as of July 31, 2014, was approximately 

$41,140.55. (Doc. 1, pgs. 4-5). The IRS summons directed Mr. Halajian to appear before, and produce 

certain documents, to the IRS on August 27, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in Fresno, California. (Id.) The IRS 

agent, Mr. Evan Moses, left a copy of the summons at the front door of Mr. Halajian‟s residence at 4917 

E. Sooner Drive, Fresno California 93727. (Id. at pg. 6; Doc. 14-2, pgs. 1-2). Mr. Halajian failed to 

appear as ordered in the summons and did not provide the requested documentation. Id.

Pursuant to the Petitioner‟s request, on May 12, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause

(“OSC”) requiring that Plaintiff appear on June 16, 2015, and show cause why he should not be 

compelled to obey the IRS summons issued on July 30, 2014. (Doc. 3). The hearing on the OSC was 

initially set for June 12, 2015, but the case has been continued several times due to difficulty serving the 

Respondent with the OSC and notice of the hearing. (Docs. 6,7, and 10). A Second Amended OSC was 

issued on September 1, 2015, and advised Mr. Halajian that the hearing on the Second Amended OSC 

would be held October 23, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and he shall file any opposition or defense to the OSC at 

least ten days before the hearing. (Doc. 12, pg. 3). The Petitioner was ordered to serve the Second 

Amended OSC on the Respondent.

On September 21, 2014, the government filed the instant Motion to Permit Alternate Process 

Service, requesting that they be permitted to serve Mr. Halajian through certified mail because they have 

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 7
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

27

28

been unable to serve him by other means. (Doc. 14). In the motion, the government outlines its 

numerous attempts to serve the Respondent:

Revenue Officer Evan D. Moses attempted to personally serve Mr. Halajian with the summons at 

his last known address at 4917 E. Sooner Drive, Fresno California on several occasions. (Doc. 14-2, 

pgs. 1-2). The officer initially attached the summons to the door, but through his visits, he 

determined that there was no one living at his address. Id. Mr. Moses attempted to serve Mr. 

Halajian with documents pertaining to the enforcement of the tax summons proceedings on July 21, 

24, and 31, 2015, and August 4, 2015, at his place of business at 2486 North Fordham Ave., Suite 

102, Fresno 93727. Id.at 2. On August 5, 2015, he received an updated Form 2848, Power of 

Attorney Form (“POA Form”) for Respondent, designating Daniel Daly, located at 520 Zang Street, 

Suite 213, Bloomfield, Colorado 80021, as the Respondent‟s Power of Attorney (“POA”) to 

represent him before the I.R.S. Id. After receiving the POA Form, Mr. Moses spoke with PA Daly 

and provided some background information about the case. Officer Moses advised POA Daly that 

several attempts had been made to serve the Respondent with process in an effort to obtain the 

necessary information requested in the original summons. Id.

On August 5, 2015, Officer Moses faxed a list identifying the documents that were required by 

the summons to PA Daly and also mailed a copy of this list to the Respondent at his business address 

at 2486 North Fordham Avenue, Suite 102, Fresno, CA 93727. Id. On August 19, 2015, Officer 

Moses received correspondence from PA Daly requesting a three-way conference call between 

himself, PA Daly and the Respondent, to discuss the summons. Id.

On August 24, 2015, the three-way conference call took place resulting in the Respondent stating 

that he is “just one man” and that he does not have the time to respond to the summons. Id. Officer 

Moses went on to explain the consequences of noncompliance with the summons, however, Mr. 

Halajian did not want to hear about these consequences. Id. Mr. Halajian further stated that he had 

hired a bookkeeper who is creating records for him, but would not provide any information about 

this individual to Officer Moses. Id. POA Daly told Officer Moses that when he mentioned to Mr. 

Halajian that a revenue officer was trying to serve paperwork on him, Respondent Halajian told PA 

Daly, “Good luck on the revenue officer trying to find me to serve papers.” Id. 

On September 21, 2105, Paulette Tremblay, a Paralegal Specialist at the United States Attorney‟s 

Office, served Mr. Halajian with all filings in this case, including the initial IRS summons, and the 

Second Amended OSC, at his business address at 2486 North Fordham Avenue, Suite 102, Fresno, 

California 93727, by regular U.S. Mail, and by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested. (Doc. 14-

3, pg. 1; Doc. 23, pg. 1-3). The tracking information reflects that delivery of the certified mailing 

was attempted on September 22, 2015, at 9:38 a.m., and that notice was left because no authorized 

recipient was available. (Doc. 23, pg. 4). On September 21, 2015, Ms. Tremblay also mailed copies 

of all filings in this case on the Respondent Halajian‟s POA Daniel Daly, located at 520 Zang Street, 

Suite 213, Bloomfield, Colorado 80021, by Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested. (Doc. 14-3, 

pg. 1; Doc. 23, pg. 1-3). The Certified mailing receipt reveals that that the mailing was received on 

September 24, 2015. (Doc. 23, pgs. 3 and 6). On September 22, 2015, one day after the service of 

these documents, Officer Moses received the POA form via fax with the words, “WITHDRAWN 

9/21/15,” written on it. (Doc. 18-2, pg. 2; Doc. 18-3, pg. 1-2; Doc. 18-4, pg. 1-2). Moreover, on 

September 30, 2015, government‟s attorney received a call from an attorney named Arash Kahen 

who indicated he had been contacted by the Respondent and was considering representing him in 

this tax summons enforcement matter. The attorney indicated that he was aware of the October 23, 

2015 OSC hearing date. (Doc. 18, at pg. 2, ¶ 7).

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 7
4

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

In addition to the above service attempts, on October 21, 2015, Officer Moses also attempted to 

personally serve Mr. Halajian who was present at the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse in 

Fresno for a hearing on a non-related matter. (Doc. 22, pgs. 1-3). Officer Moses attempted to 

personally hand Mr. Halajian documents related to the enforcement of the summons petition, 

including the Second Amended OSC, and the hearing notice advising Mr. Halajian of the hearing on 

October 23, 2015. Id. When Mr. Halajian saw Officer Moses and the documents he was attempting 

to serve, Mr. Halajian crossed his arms against his chest and told Officer Moses he was not 

registered to accept service and refused to take the envelope. Id. at pgs. 2-3. Officer Moses dropped 

the envelope at Mr. Halajian‟s feet. Id. at 3. When he did so, Mr. Halajian walked away from the 

envelope and exited the courthouse. Id.

III. Discussion 

Petitioner argues that the attempts at personal service made on Respondent on October 21, 2015, at 

the Courthouse constitutes valid service. However, recognizing that this service only occurred two days 

prior to the hearing, the government also moves the Court to permit alternate process service through 

regular and certified mail that was previously sent on September 21, 2015, to Respondent‟s business 

address, as well as regular and certified mail sent on September 21, 2015, to POA Daly, who at that time 

was Respondent‟s duly-designated tax representative. Respondent did not file an opposition to this 

motion.

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(e), service upon an individual may be 

effected in any judicial district of the United States:

(1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located, or in which service is 

effected, for the service of a summons upon the defendant in an action brought in the courts of 

general jurisdiction of the State; or

(2) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally or by 

leaving copies thereof at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some 

person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein or by delivering a copy of the 

summons and of the complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive 

service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). 

The goal of Rule 4 is to “to provide maximum freedom and flexibility in the procedures for giving 

all defendants ... notice of commencement of the action and to eliminate unnecessary technicality in 

connection with service of process.” Elec. Specialty Co. v. Road & Ranch Supply, Inc., 967 F.2d 309, 

314 (9th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). Due Process requires that any service of notice be “reasonably 

calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford 

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 4 of 7
5

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

them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 

306, 314 (1950). While the Federal Rules “have an application to a summons proceeding,” they “are not 

inflexible.” United States v. Donaldson, 400 U.S. 517, 528–29 (1971). A district court “may limit their 

application in a proceeding to enforce a summons, which is intended to be a summary proceeding, so 

long as the rights of the party summoned are protected and an adversary hearing, if requested, is made 

available.” United States v. Church of Scientology of Cal., 520 F.2d 818, 821 (9th Cir.1975) (quoting 

Donaldson, 400 U .S. at 529).

Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(5) gives district courts the discretion in subpoena 

enforcement proceedings “to tailor the Federal Rules to the particular need and purposes of the 

proceeding.” United States v. McCoy, 954 F.2d 1000, 1004 (5th Cir.1992). Courts have held that Rule 

81 provides the Court the authority to allow a less formal service of process than that required under 

Rule 4. FTC v. Carter, 636 F.2d 781, 791 (D.C.Cir.1980). Rule 81(a)(5)“make[s] application of the 

rules of civil procedure in subpoena enforcement proceedings discretionary with the district court.”

United States v. S.E. First N at'l Bank of Miami Springs, 655 F.2d 661, 663 (5th Cir.1981). “Although 

the court may resort to the rules whenever it deems them „helpful,‟ it need not apply the rules when to 

do so „may conflict with the summary determination desired.‟” Id. (quoting Advisory Committee Notes 

of 1946). “A district court may approve of a method of service that is different than the requirements of 

the Rules, provided the service gives reasonable notice to the persons served with the subpoena.” 14 

Moore‟s Federal Practice, § 81.05[3].

B. Analysis 

The Second OSC issued by the Court on September 1, 2015, provides for a motion for alternate 

process service by stating: “If the federal employee assigned to serve these papers is not reasonably able 

to serve the papers as provided in paragraph 3, petitioner may request a court order granting leave to 

serve by other means. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(5).” (Doc 12 at ¶ 5). Here, the Court finds that the 

personal delivery of the summons at the Courthouse on October 21, 2015, establishes proper service 

since Officer Moses attempted to personally serve the Respondent and left the documents at his feet 

after Mr. Halajian refused to accept them. See Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of America v. Brenneke, 551 

F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Sufficient service may be found where there is a good faith effort 

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

to comply with the Requirements of Rule 4(e)(2) which resulted in placement of the summons and 

complaint within the defendant‟s immediate proximity and further compliance with Rule 4(e)(2), is only 

prevented by the defendant‟s knowing and intentional actions to evade service.”).

Although the Court finds the above service was proper, there is a concern that the service only 

occurred two days prior to the hearing. Therefore, Court also considers the Petitioner‟s request for 

alternate service, and finds that the methods utilized, including the regular and certified mail sent on 

September 21, 2015, to the Respondent‟s business address, and regular and certified mail sent on 

September 21, 2015, to POA Daly, who at that time was the Respondent‟s duly-designated tax 

representative, were reasonably calculated to afford the Respondent actual notice of the OSC 

proceedings. These methods satisfy the Due Process requirement that service be reasonably calculated, 

under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action, and to afford them an 

opportunity to present their objections. This is especially true since after service by these methods, an 

attorney contacted the AUSA in this case on the Respondent‟s behalf indicating that he was considering 

taking the case, and during that conversation discussed the October 23, 2015 hearing date with 

government counsel. Finally, the fact that on September 22, 2015, one day after service of the 

documents related to the enforcement of the summons proceedings, Officer Moses received the POA 

form via fax with the words “WITHDRAWN 9/21/15,” written on it, is further evidence that 

Respondent was aware of the service of these documents. This coupled with Respondent‟s refusal to 

accept personal service of the Second OSC, that provided notice of the October 23, 2015 hearing date, 

and related documents, suggest that all of these actions were taken for the purpose of evading service, 

and that permitting an alternative method of service is appropriate. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attempt to personally serve 

the Respondent on October 21, 2015, constituted proper service. 

Additionally, the Petitioner‟s Motion to Permit Alternate Process Service is GRANTED, nunc 

pro tunc. The Court finds that the steps taken, namely service via regular United States mail and 

certified mail on Respondent, and on his POA on September 21, 2015, satisfies the Due Process 

requirement that service be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties 

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

of the pendency of the action, and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00632-LJO-EPG Document 27 Filed 11/24/15 Page 7 of 7