UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:16-CV-145-PPS-SLC

 )

NORMAN E. KAIN, SALLY A. KAIN, and )

SOVEREIGN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion for: (1) Judgment on

the Pleadings Against Defendant Norman E. Kain; and (2) Default Judgment Against

Defendants Sally A. Kain and Sovereign Financial Management. [DE 24.] As the

United States points out, Norman Kain “answered” the complaint by filing several

somewhat nonsensical “Notices” wherein he only seeks to contest the jurisdiction of the

Court, but has otherwise failed to defend against the allegations pleaded in the

complaint. [DE 25 at 2.] Mr. Kain has not provided any factual grounds for why

jurisdiction is lacking. Despite Mr. Kain’s unsupported contentions, I have jurisdiction

over this action. 

Mr. Kain contends that the issue of jurisdiction must be decided by a grand jury,

but this is a civil proceeding to reduce federal tax assessments to judgment and enforce

federal tax liens, not a federal criminal prosecution. I may determine my own

jurisdiction to entertain this action. In the complaint, the United States alleges that

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00145-PPS-SLC document 33 filed 11/16/16 page 1 of 3
Norman Kain resides in Wells County, Indiana and that the real property against which

it seeks to enforce federal tax liens also is located in Wells County (facts that Mr. Kain

does not contest), which provides an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction. For these

reasons, venue also is proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1396. I have subject matter

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(a) and 7403, and 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1340, and 1345. Furthermore, this case clearly invokes federal question

jurisdiction because it is a civil action commenced by the United States seeking to

enforce the internal revenue laws. For these reasons, I have jurisdiction over this action

and Kain cannot rely on a jurisdictional argument to support his refusal to defend

against the allegations pleaded in the complaint.

In support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings against Mr. Kain, the

United States asserts that because Mr. Kain failed to properly answer the complaint and

deny the allegations contained therein, they are deemed admitted. The United States is

correct. But because Mr. Kain is proceeding pro se, I will give him one final

opportunity to remedy his mistake and file an answer that complies with Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 8 prior to ruling on the Unites States’ motion. I caution Mr. Kain that

if he continues to file “Notices” challenging my jurisdiction instead of the requisite

responsive pleading, all facts in the complaint will be deemed admitted by him and he

risks the entry of judgment against him on the pleadings.

ACCORDINGLY:

2

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00145-PPS-SLC document 33 filed 11/16/16 page 2 of 3
I ORDER Norman Kain to file an answer that complies with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8 no later than November 28, 2016. I take the United States’ Motion for: 

(1) Judgment on the Pleadings Against Defendant Norman E. Kain [DE 24] under

advisement pending the filing of an answer by Norman Kain. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 16, 2016

s/ Philip P. Simon 

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00145-PPS-SLC document 33 filed 11/16/16 page 3 of 3