USA, et al v. Scott, No. 2:2010mc00037 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/18/10, ORDERING that the proposed findings and recommendations remain pending before the assigned district judge notwithstanding the parties failed meeting. The parties are not precluded from again attempting to resolve the tax summons without court intervention. However, absent such a resolution, upon the district judge adopting the findings and recommendations, the parties will be obligated to meet within 21 days thereafter.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
USA, et al v. Scott Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and JOSE ARTEAGA, Revenue Officer, Internal Revenue Service, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioners, No. 2:10-mc-00037 LKK KJN v. RESPONSE TO THE PARTIES’ RECENT SUBMISSIONS JEFFREY SCOTT, Respondent. / On May 27, 2010, following a hearing on a previously entered order to show 18 cause, the undersigned submitted proposed findings and recommendations to the United States 19 District Judge assigned to this matter. (Dkt. No. 7.) Those findings and recommendations 20 acknowledge that the parties were to meet on an agreed upon date, at an agreed upon time and 21 location, in hopes of resolving the tax summons without further court involvement. (See id. at 2, 22 4.) The findings and recommendations also provide, in part, that “[i]f petitioners and respondent 23 are unable to resolve the issues pertaining to the tax summons during their meeting on June 10, 24 2010, that respondent be ordered to appear at the IRS offices at 4830 Business Center Drive, 25 Suite 250, in Fairfield, California 94534, before Revenue Officer Jose Arteaga, within 21 days of 26 the entry of an order adopting these findings and recommendations, if any, or at a later date and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 time to be set and noticed in writing by Revenue Officer Arteaga.” (Id. at 4.) 2 According to recent filings by the parties, it appears the parties’ June 10, 2010 3 meeting was unsuccessful. Petitioners’ assert that Revue Officer Arteaga appeared “at the 4 Fairfield I.R.S. Offices” on the date and at the time agreed upon, but that respondent failed to 5 appear. (Dkt. No. 9.) Respondent asserts that he appeared “at the court appointed time and 6 location on the date listed in the findings and recommendations,” but that “no agent did appear.” 7 (Dkt. No. 11.) 8 9 The court need not resolve these disputed facts. As stated above, the proposed findings and recommendations remain pending before the assigned district judge notwithstanding 10 the parties’ failed meeting. The undersigned notes that the parties are not precluded from again 11 attempting to resolve the tax summons without court intervention. As noted above, however, 12 absent such a resolution, upon the district judge adopting the undersigned’s findings and 13 recommendations the parties will be obligated to meet within 21 days thereafter. 14 DATED: June 18, 2010 15 16 17 18 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
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.
