Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth A. GARDNER, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries and Fredric A. Gardner, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-01
Citations: 457 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 08-15750
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth A. GARDNER, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries and Fredric A. Gardner, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 457
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elizabeth A. GARDNER, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries and Fredric A. Gardner, DBA Bethal Aram Ministries, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 08-15750.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Nov. 1, 2011.
Curtis Clarence Pett, Esquire, Martin M. Shoemaker, Esquire, Andrea R. Teb-bets, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Gardner, Ph.D., Dewey, AZ, pro se.
Fredric A. Gardner, Dewey, AZ, pro se.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Elizabeth A. Gardner and Fredric A. Gardner, individually and doing business as Bethel Aram Ministries, appeal pro se from the district court's summary judgment enjoining them from promoting, organizing, and selling their corporation sole tax scheme in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6700. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Kapp, 564 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief because the government proved each element for an injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408(a). See United States v. Estate Pres. Servs., 202 F.3d 1093, 1098 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth the requirements for injunctive relief under § 7408 for a violation of § 6700). Summary judgment was proper because the Gardners failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of the elements. See Kapp, 564 F.3d at 1109 (reviewing de novo the determination that there is no genuine dispute of material fact).
The Gardners' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.