Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20101210_0061904.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 01:53:32
Document Index: 411020868

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1345', '§ 7402', '§ 636', '§ 1391', '§ 7402', '§ 636']

Plaintiff offers this factual background, which defendant has not opposed:*fn1
Defendant's filings appear to raise lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and lack of venue as defenses. None of the defenses have merit. Furthermore, evidence submitted with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and summary judgment motion demonstrates that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief it seeks. See Docket Nos. 4 & 14.
As provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1345, "the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States . . . ." Additionally, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a), "[t]he district courts of the United States at the instance of the United States shall have such jurisdiction to make and issue in civil actions, writs and orders of injunction, and of ne exeat republica,*fn2 orders appointing receivers, and such other orders and processes, and to render such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws." Under these statutes, and the authority conferred upon a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding.
Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims of the United States - namely, defendant's filing of the UCC lien with the Secretary of State of California - occurred in Sacramento, which is in this judicial district.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 authorizes summary judgment if no genuine issue exists regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of an issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The moving party may satisfy this burden by showing an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. Id. If the movant initially shows there are no genuine issues for trial, the nonmoving party cannot rest on the pleadings, but must respond with evidence setting "forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). When "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)). Summary judgment is appropriate here because the undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Second, plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. Here, where the United States has demonstrated a statutory entitlement to injunctive relief, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of irreparable harm. See United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Cohen, 222 F.R.D. 652 (W.D. Wash. 2004). Plaintiff has shown such an entitlement here because it has demonstrated that defendant intentionally interfered with the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. See 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). In the alternative, plaintiff has demonstrated it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. As numerous courts have recognized, the filing of frivolous liens results in irreparable harm to the government because it prevents employees from undertaking the vigorous and evenhanded enforcement of the internal revenue laws. See, e.g., United States v. MacElvain, 858 F. Supp. 1096, 1100-01 (M.D. Ala. 1994); see also United States v. Barker, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1384 (S.D. Ga. 1998) ("Public officials subject to harassing and malicious filings such as the liens at issue in this case cannot effectively perform their duties. Indeed, they may be coerced by such filings into making decisions that are not in the public interest just to avoid the filing of further liens. Consequently, the American citizens at large suffer when our public officials are not able to perform their duties free of harassment and attempts at extortion."). Defendant's actions in this case demonstrate that, absent an injunction, she is likely to file other frivolous liens in the future. For example, defendant filed in the court a purported "Notice of Default and Consent to Judgment" in which she claimed that Plaintiff's counsel owed her $250,000.00. See Notice of Default & Consent to J. 3 (Docket No. 7).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within fourteen days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).