USA V. RUDRA SABARATNAM, No. 15-56463 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-56463 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04504-SJO-RZ v. MEMORANDUM* RUDRA SABARATNAM, Defendant-Appellant, and MUFTHIHA SABARATNAM, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Rudra Sabaratnam appeals pro se from the district court’s summary * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment for the United States in its action to reduce to judgment Sabaratnam’s tax liabilities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Sabaratnam’s trust fund penalties for tax year 2000 because Sabaratnam failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the assessments of these penalties were untimely. See 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) (Internal Revenue Service must assess a tax liability within three years after a return is filed); id. at § 6672(b)(3)(B) (where a protest to a notice informing taxpayer of penalties is made, the statute of limitations is extended until 30 days after the final administrative determination with respect to that protest); FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conclusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Sabaratnam’s remaining contentions. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-56463

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.