Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01932/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01932-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sigurd Anderson
Respondent
United States of America
Petitioner

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIGURD ANDERSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01932-JST 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Re: ECF Nos. 62, 64

On November 25, 2014, the Court granted the Government‘s Petition to Enforce the IRS 

Summons. ECF No. 61. The Court ordered Respondent Sigurd Anderson ―to appear before 

Revenue Agent Sarah Ho, or any other proper officer or employee of the IRS, at such time and 

place as may be set by Revenue Agent Ho or her designee, and produce the documents and give 

the testimony called for by the terms of the summons dated December 17, 2013, a copy of which 

is attached as an exhibit to the Declaration of Sarah Ho dated April 25, 2014.‖ Id. 

Respondent has now filed a motion to stay the Court‘s order granting the petition to 

enforce the summons. ECF No. 62. Respondent has also filed a motion for instructions to comply 

with the Court‘s order. ECF No. 64. 

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying petition arises from an Internal Revenue Service (―IRS‖) investigation 

being prosecuted by Revenue Agent Sarah Ho (―Agent Ho‖). ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4. The investigation 

concerns Respondent‘s tax liabilities and investment activities for the years of 2009 and 2010. Id. 

On December 17, 2013, Agent Ho issued a summons for documents and testimony related to the 

alleged tax liabilities. Id. at ¶ 5; ECF No. 1-2. Pursuant to the summons, IRS officials including 

Agent Ho interviewed Respondent on January 14, 2014. Respondent refused to answer a majority 

of the questions posed to him, and did not supply any of the requested documents, claiming 

Case 3:14-cv-01932-JST Document 75 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5
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

various grounds of privilege. Id. at 9-10.

Seeking a court order compelling Respondent‘s cooperation with the summons, the IRS 

filed a petition to enforce the IRS summons on April 25, 2014. ECF No. 1. On May 23, 2014, this 

Court found that the Government had established its prima facie case and ordered Respondent to 

show cause why he should not be compelled to produce the requested documents and testimony. 

ECF No. 9. Following briefing on the order to show cause, the Court concluded that Respondent 

had not succeeded in meeting his heavy burden to demonstrate that the government had not met its 

prima facie case or that the summons had been brought for an improper purpose. ECF No. 61 at 

3-6. The Court also rejected Respondent‘s attempts to invoke a blanket privilege over all the 

documents and answers sought by the IRS. Id. at 6. 

II. MOTION TO STAY

A. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63(c), a District Court ―may suspend, modify, 

restore, or grant an injunction‖ while an appeal is pending from a final judgment. ―The Court 

considers the same criteria as the traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive 

relief, which are: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable 

injury to the moving party if the stay is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships favoring the 

moving party; and (4) advancement of the public interest.‖ United States v. Lee, Goddard & 

Duffy, LLP, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1166-67 (C.D. Cal. 2008).

B. Analysis

i. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Court finds that Respondent is unlikely to succeed on appeal, weighing against the 

issuance of a stay. A party seeking to prevent the enforcement of an IRS summons bears a heavy 

burden. Crystal v. United States, 172 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 1999). ―The courts‘ role in a 

proceeding to enforce an administrative subpoena is extremely limited.‖ RNR Enterprises, Inc. v. 

S.E.C., 122 F.3d 93, 96 (2d Cir. 1997). ―Enforcement of a summons is generally a summary 

proceeding to which a taxpayer has few defenses.‖ United States v. Derr, 968 F.2d 943, 945 (9th 

Case 3:14-cv-01932-JST Document 75 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Cir. 1992). 

The Court analyzed Respondent‘s arguments in its order granting the petition for 

enforcement of the IRS summons and found that Respondent had failed to satisfy that burden. 

ECF No. 61. In resolving this motion, the Court has again reviewed Respondent‘s arguments 

again and concludes they lack merit. In his motion to stay, Respondent asserts several arguments 

that were not properly raised in his initial briefing, but raised for the first time in a motion to 

strike, which the Court declined to address in its prior order. Id. at 7. These arguments are also 

unlikely to prove successful on appeal. The Court notes that Respondent‘s likelihood of success 

on appeal is further lessened by the clearly erroneous standard of review that will be applied by 

the Ninth Circuit to the mixed questions of law and fact presented. See, e.g., United States v. 

Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1422 (9th Cir. 1995); Lee, Goddard & Duffy, 553 F.Supp.2d at 1167. 

ii. Irreparable Injury

Respondent argues that he will be irreparably injured in the absence of a stay because he 

will be compelled to waive his privilege. The Court disagrees. The Supreme Court has held that

an appeal of a Court‘s order enforcing compliance with an IRS summons is not mooted when the 

documents are produced or testimony is given. Church of Scientology of California v. United 

States, 506 U.S. 9, 13 (1992). Although ―a court may not be able to return the parties to the status 

quo ante—there is nothing a court can do to withdraw all knowledge or information that IRS 

agents may have acquired by examination of the tapes—a court can fashion some form of 

meaningful relief in circumstances such as these.‖ Church of Scientology of California v. United 

States, 506 U.S. 9, 12-13 (1992). Citing Church of Scientology, District Courts have routinely 

found that no irreparable injury would result from the denial of a stay pending appeal of an order 

enforcing compliance with an IRS summons. See, e.g., Lee, Goddard & Duffy, LLP, 553 F. Supp. 

2d at 1168; United States v. Diversified Grp., Inc., No. M 18-304 PKL, 2002 WL 31812701, at *1 

(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2002); United States v. Bright, No. CIV. 07-00311 ACK-KS, 2008 WL 

351215, at *2 (D. Haw. Feb. 7, 2008). The Court agrees that Respondent will not be irreparably 

injured in the absence of a stay. 

Case 3:14-cv-01932-JST Document 75 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

iii. Balance of Hardships and Public Interest

The balance of hardships weighs against a stay, as the government has a ―need to assess 

and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial 

interference.‖ Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 736 (1974). Because the government 

served the summons over a year ago, petitioner has already succeeded in frustrating the 

government‘s efforts to expeditiously assess Respondent‘s tax liabilities. Issuance of a stay 

pending appeal would further complicate a potential IRS investigation, because the passage of 

time would result in the dimming of memories of witnesses and the potential loss of documents. 

In contrast, as noted above, any injury to Respondent resulting from compliance could be 

remedied if Respondent‘s arguments ultimately prevail on appeal. See Church of Scientology, 

506 U.S. at 12-13. Therefore, the balance of hardships weighs against granting the stay. 

―In actions brought by federal agencies,  ̳the government's interest is in large part 

presumed to be the public's interest.‘‖ Bright, 2008 WL 351215 at *3 (citing United States v. 

Rural Elec. Convenience Cooperative Co., 922 F.2d 429, 440 (7th Cir.1991). Given the 

government‘s substantial interest in assessing tax liability, staying the enforcement of the 

summons further would also be contrary to the public interest. 

C. Conclusion

Because all of the factors weigh against a stay of the enforcement of the summons, 

petitioner‘s request for a stay pending appeal is denied. 

III. MOTION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO COMPLY

Respondent has also filed a motion for miscellaneous relief asking the Court for 

instructions on how to comply with the Court‘s order granting enforcement of the summons. ECF 

No. 64. Respondent essentially asks the Court to instruct him how he may avoid the risk of being 

held in contempt in the future. Respondent does not identify any authority under which he seeks 

such relief.1 The Court cannot offer Respondent instructions on how to proceed so as to avoid 

 

1 On January 7, 2015, Respondent filed a Statement of Recent Decision for the purpose of calling 

the Court's attention to Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, No. 12-

35266, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2014 WL 7235539 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014). The filing violated Local 

Case 3:14-cv-01932-JST Document 75 Filed 01/21/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

being held in contempt, as no motion for contempt is currently before the Court. The Court notes 

only that the government‘s prior motion, which the Court granted, sought to enforce the IRS

summons. ECF No. 61. The Court again directs Respondent to ―produce the documents and give 

the testimony called for by the terms of the summons dated December 17, 2013.‖ Id. at 7-8. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent‘s motion for a stay and motion for instructions to 

comply are both DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

Rule 7-3(d), which provides that, ―[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or 

letters may be filed without prior Court approval. The only relevant exception is that ―[b]efore the 

noticed hearing date, counsel may bring to the Court‘s attention a relevant judicial opinion 

published after the date the opposition or reply was filed by filing and serving a Statement of 

Recent Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of the new opinion–without 

argument.‖ Id., subpart (2). Nonetheless, the Court has considered the Cetacean Research case in 

deciding this motion. In that case, a panel of the Ninth Circuit observed that a defendant who 

claimed that the terms of an injunction were unclear had not availed itself of the opportunity to 

seek clarification of those terms from the issuing court. Id. at *16. The case does not create a 

right to seek from a court clarification of the terms of a summons issued by a third party. 

Case 3:14-cv-01932-JST Document 75 Filed 01/21/15 Page 5 of 5