T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. S T AN L E Y Z URN an dKE L L UN I ON , LLC, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s, a nd V A L E R Y Z U RN , A K A V al er i e Z urn; et a l., D efen d an t s. N os . 09- 55805, 09- 55807 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 7 7 6 6 - G WF MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . W u, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a y6, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia 

# FI LED MA Y10 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 55805, 09- 55807 2 B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , T A L L M A N , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n th e s e c o n s o l i d a t e dap p e a l s , St a n l e yZu rn a n dKe l l u n i o n , LL C ( “A p p e lla n ts ” ) ap p e a l f

r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t r e du c in g Z u rn ’s u n p a id t ax l i abi l i ty t o j ud gm ent , se tt i ng as i de the transfe r of c ert ai n p ropert i es fr om Z urn t o K el l u n i o n , an dfo recl o si n g fed eral t ax l i en s o n an do rd eri n g th e sal e o f th o se pr ope rt i e s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n r e g a r d in g am o tio n to d is m is s u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e du r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) o r1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . A rr i ngton v . W ong , 23 7 F . 3d 10 66 , 10 69 (9th C i r. 2001) . W e r e vi e w f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on to r e c o n s id e rag r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. Sc h . D is t. N o . 1 J , Mu ln o m a h Cn ty ., O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F. 3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d en i edA p p el l an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss b ecau se th e r e w a s n o p e n d in g c o lle c tio n du e p r o c e s s ( “C D P ” ) h e a r in g . See 2 6 U . S. C. § 6 33 0(e) (s uspensi on on l y app l i es w hi l e C D P “ hear i ng , and app ea l s there i n, ar e pe ndi ng” ) . M or e ove r , § 6330( e ) onl yappl i e s t o a dm i ni s tr a t i ve t a x l e vy p r o c e e d in g s , n o t lie n - f

o r e c lo s u r e s u its s u c h a s th e o n e c h a lle n g e dh e r e . Se e i d. ; se e al so U ni ted States v. N

at ’l B an k of C om m erce , 472 U . S . 713, 720- 21 ( 1985) (di sc ussi ng di ff

er ence betw ee n adm i ni stra t i ve l evy and l i en-f orec l osure s ui t ).09- 55805, 09- 55807 3 T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng A ppe l l a nt s ’ m ot i on to r e c o n s id e rth e c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c au s e A p p e lla n ts f a ile dto id e n tif ya n yg r o u n df

o rr e lie f . See Caseyv. A lbert

son’s I nc. , 362 F . 3d 1254, 1260 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d is c u s s in g F e d e r a l R u le C iv il P r o c e du r e 6 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) ) ; T urner v . B ur l i ngton N

. Santa Fe R . R . C o. , 338 F . 3d 1058, 1063 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( di s c us s i ng F e d e r a l R u le C iv il P r o c e du r e 5 9 ( e ) ) ; see a l so C . D . C al . L . R . 7-18 . A s the di stri ct c ourte xpl a i ne d, w he the rA ppe l l a nt s ha d obt a i ne d at a x i de nt i f i c a t i on num be rf

or the trustw as no tm at er i al t o the court ’ s dec i si on . F urtherm ore, i f A pp el l ant s had e xe r c i s e d di l i ge nc e , the f a c tua l e rr orc oul d ha ve be e n di s c ove r e d a nd r a i s e d pr i or to th e g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng A ppe l l a nt s ’ s e c ond r e q u e s t to c o n tin u e th e d a te f o rth e s u m m a ryju d g m e n t h e a r in g . Se e O rrv . B ank of A m. , 285 F . 3d 764, 783- 84 ( 9th C i r . 2002) . T he c ourtha d a l r e a dygr a nt e d one e xt e ns i on, a nd A ppe l l a nt s di d nots how di l i ge nc e i n pr e pa r i ng ar e s pons e t o the U n ite dS ta te s ’ m o tio n f o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e do n otconsi der w hether the di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j udgm e ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s be c aus e A ppe l l a nt s ha ve nota dva nc e d a ny a r g u m e n ts in s up p o rt o f th e irp o s itio n o n th is is s u e . Se e Cac hi l D e he B and of W in tu n I n d ia n s o f C o lu s a I

n d ia n Cm ty . v . Ca lifo rn ia , 5 4 7 F .3 d9 6 2 , 9 6 8 n .3 ( 9 th09- 55805, 09- 55807 4 C i r . 2008) ( de e m i ng aba ndone d i s s ue l i s t e d a m ong gr ounds f orappe a l butnot supp ort ed by ar gu m ent ). T h e U n ite dS ta te s ’ m o tio n to s tr ik e p o rtio n s o f A p p e lla n ts ’ r e p lyb r ie f is de ni e d. AF F I RME D.