Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80270/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-mc-80270-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maxcrest Limited
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXCREST LIMITED,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-mc-80270-JST 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF 

DISPOSITIVE MATTER

Re: ECF Nos. 22, 29, 38

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Maxcrest Limited’s objection to a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) Regarding Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition to Quash

issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte. ECF No. 29. The case was referred to the 

undersigned immediately following the issuance of Judge Laporte’s R&R. Petitioner Maxcrest 

Limited has moved for de novo determination of the petition. ECF No. 38. Respondent United 

States has filed a response requesting that the Court adopt the Report and Recommendation in its 

entirety. ECF No. 42. 

The Court will grant Petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 38), deny the United States’ motion to 

dismiss the petition (ECF No. 22) as moot, and terminate the Report and Recommendation (ECF 

No. 29).

I. BACKGROUND

Maxcrest Limited is a successor-in-interest to Platten Overseas Ltd. ECF No. 1 ¶ 4; ECF 

No. 33 ¶ 4. On September 16, 2015, the IRS issued a summons to Google Inc. to produce account 

information for the email account “plattenoverseas@gmail.com.” Maxcrest filed a petition on 

November 13, 2015, requesting that the Court quash the IRS summons because the United States

failed to give proper notice. ECF No. 1. On January 11, 2016, the United States moved to dismiss 

Case 3:15-mc-80270-JST Document 49 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the petition, ECF No. 12, and on February 1, 2016, Maxcrest filed its opposition to the motion, 

ECF No. 20. 

On February 12, 2016, the United States withdrew the summons (“the first summons”). 

See ECF No. 22-2, Ex. A. Four days later, the United States withdrew its motion to dismiss and 

filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition to quash the first summons had become 

moot. ECF No. 22. 

On March 17, 2016, the United States served another summons (“the second summons”) 

on Google and served notice on Maxcrest by certified mail. ECF No. 32. 

On March 25, 2016, Magistrate Judge Laporte issued her R&R regarding the United 

States’ motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 29. Judge Laporte recommended granting the 

United States’ motion and dismissing Maxcrest’s petition with leave to amend to challenge the 

second summons. 

On April 7, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that Maxcrest could file an 

amended petition to quash the second summons. ECF No. 32. That same day, Maxcrest filed an 

amended petition. ECF No. 33. On April 20, 2016, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the 

amended petition. ECF No. 43.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides for de novo review of dispositive 

magistrate orders. Upon review of a dispositive magistrate order, “[t]he district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected 

to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo 

determination of those portions of the [magistrate’s] report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made.”).

III. DISCUSSION

Maxcrest argues that because an amended petition addressing the second summons has 

been filed, the United States’ motion to dismiss the original petition is “now inapplicable and itself 

moot.” ECF No. 38 at 7. The Court agrees and GRANTS Maxcrest’s motion for de novo 

Case 3:15-mc-80270-JST Document 49 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determination. 

In light of Maxcrest’s amended petition, the United States’ second motion to dismiss the 

original petition – which was the subject of Judge Laporte’s Report and Recommendation – is

moot.1 Cf. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he general rule is that 

an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect . . . .”). 

The Court accordingly ORDERS as follows:

1. Respondent’s second motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, is DENIED as moot. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE the Report and 

Recommendation Regarding Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition to Quash at 

ECF No. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

1 Along with the recommendation that the Court grant the United States’ motion to dismiss, Judge 

Laporte also recommended denying Maxcrest’s request to take discovery and request for 

attorneys’ fees. Because the Court terminates Judge Laporte’s Report and Recommendation, these 

issues are no longer before the Court. 

Case 3:15-mc-80270-JST Document 49 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 3