Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00431/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00431-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lidco Inc.
Defendant
Shirley Lundy
Defendant
Duane Reed
Defendant
George Loren Reed
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE LOREN REED,

Individually and as Trustee of

the REED FAMILY TRUST; DUANE

REED, Individually and as

Trustee of the REED FAMILY

TRUST; LIDCO INC.; and

SHIRLEY LUNDY, 

Defendants.

CV-F-05-0431 OWW LJO (NEW DJ)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY OF

FINAL JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL 

(DOC. 50)

This case concerns the federal government’s attempts to

foreclose on real property to collect unpaid taxes. George Loren

Reed, individually, Duane Reed, individually, and Shirley Lundy,

individually, (“Defendants”) move to stay the final judgment

pending appeal. (Doc. 50, filed June 23, 2006.) The United

States (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. (Doc. 59, filed June

30, 2006.) The Reed Family Trust has not responded to the

motion.

A. Background.

In a previous action before this court, United States v.

George Raymond Reed, Civ. No. F-88-106 EDP, the United States

secured money judgments against George Raymond Reed and Gladys

Case 1:05-cv-00431-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 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

An abbreviated version of the factual and procedural 1

history is set forth here. The court’s Order Granting United

States’ Motion for Default Judgment, Final Judgment, and Order of

Foreclosure contains a more thorough recitation of the background

of this case. (See Doc. 49 at 1:25-8:1.) 

2

Reed (collectively the “Taxpayers”) in the amount of $283,272.33,

plus penalties and interest since February 22, 1988. On October 1

2, 1991, abstracts of these judgments were recorded with the

County Recorder’s Office for Stanislaus County. On March 11,

1992, the court allowed the United States to enforce its money

judgments against the Taxpayers by foreclosing its federal tax

liens on real property that Taxpayers owned. The foreclosure was

not completed because of the Taxpayers’ advanced age, their

occupancy of the parcels, and the poor real estate market at that

time. 

On July 28, 2004, upon the deaths of the Taxpayers, the

United States filed its motion for an amended order of

foreclosure, seeking to enforce its money judgments against two

parcels of real property. The government discovered additional

parcels owned by George Raymond Reed and the Reed Family Trust

encumbered by deeds of trust in favor of the three individual

defendants.

On March 31, 2005, the United States initiated this action

seeking to enforce its money judgments against three parcels of

real property owned by the Taxpayers. (See Doc. 1, Compl.) 

Defendants are the heirs of the Taxpayers, successors in interest

in this real property, and beneficiaries under deeds of trust

encumbering the real properties. On June 10, 2005, the clerk of

the court filed an entry of default against Defendants George

Case 1:05-cv-00431-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Loren Reed and Duane Reed. (Doc. 23.) On September 27, 2005,

default was entered against Defendant Shirley Lundy. (Doc. 33.)

On November 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Default

Judgment, Final Judgment, and Order of Foreclosure. (Doc. 36.) 

Defendants did not file briefing in opposition to the motion or

appear at the hearing to oppose the motion. Rather, on December

8, 2005, they sought an order to extend time so they could obtain

an attorney. The Court continued the hearing until January 9,

2006. Defendants did not appear and did not obtain an attorney.

On February 2, 2006, the court issued its Order Granting

United States’ Motion for Default Judgment, Final Judgment, and

Order of Foreclosure (the “Order”). (Doc. 49.) The Order

authorized the Internal Revenue Service to offer for public sale

certain real property (the “Property”) held by Defendants and

subject to federal tax liens. (Doc. 49 at 16:26-17:5.) On May

3, 2006, Defendants filed their notice of appeal of the Order. 

(Doc. 51.)

On May 3, 2006, Defendants filed a motion for stay of the

final judgment. The motion was briefed and heard on September

17, 2006. No appearance was made at the hearing on behalf of

Defendants. 

Following the hearing, the court received by U.S. mail a

letter from George Loren Reed indicating that he had filed for

Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 14, 2006.

On September 18, 2006, the Ninth Circuit’s Order dismissing

Defendants appeal was filed, dismissing the appeal for failure to

file an opening brief (Doc. 64). 

A court is permitted to take judicial notice of court

Case 1:05-cv-00431-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 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

4

records in another case, including court records available to the

public through the PACER system via the internet. See United

States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9 Cir.2004); Jacobsen th

v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1207 (C.D.Cal.2004). The

PACER system for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Eastern District of California establishes that George Loren Reed

filed a bankruptcy petition in Case No. 06-90363 on July 14, 2006

and that the bankruptcy petition was dismissed by Order filed on

August 31, 2006. The PACER system for the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California

establishes that George Loren Reed filed a bankruptcy petition in

Case No. 06-90522 on September 13, 2006 and that the bankruptcy

petition was dismissed by order filed on November 20, 2006.

B. Recusal.

The court, sua sponte, raises the issue of whether recusal

is appropriate because the undersigned presided over a criminal

matter involving a party in this case, George Loren Reed. Under

28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a district judge “shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” “Recusal is required ‘only if the bias or prejudice

stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or

rulings made during the course of the proceeding.’” United

States v. $292,888.04 in United States Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566

(9th Cir. 1995) (holding that district judge who presided over

party’s criminal trial was not for that reason disqualified from

related civil forfeiture case under section 455); see also Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding that in the

absence of some extrajudicial source of bias or partiality,

Case 1:05-cv-00431-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 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

5

“judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical

or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or

their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality

challenge”); United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 1005 (9th

Cir. 2002).

The undersigned presided over George Loren Reed’s criminal

proceedings in United States v. Knight, 1:95-cr-05174 OWW-LJOALL. The court finds that nothing in the course of those

proceedings evinces bias from an “extrajudicial source” that

would cause the court’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned. 

See $292,888.04 in United States Currency, 54 F.3d at 566. Nor

is there any bias against Mr. Reed, who was sentenced and

presumably has paid his debt to society.

 Accordingly, the court finds that recusal is not

appropriate in this case.

C. Stay of Final Judgment Pending Appeal.

Because the bankruptcy petitions filed by George Loren Reed

have been dismissed, the automatic stay no longer prevents

resolution of Defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal. 

Because Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit has been

dismissed, Defendants motion for stay of final judgment pending

appeal is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00431-OWW -LJO Document 65 Filed 12/15/06 Page 5 of 5