Harvey et al v. Louisiana Department of Revenue et al, No. 2:2015cv05983 - Document 27 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 6 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 3/2/2016. (cms)

Download PDF
Harvey et al v. Louisiana Department of Revenue et al Doc. 27 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A CYRIL J. H ARVEY, JR., ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -59 8 3 U N KN OW N AGEN T OF TH E IN TERN AL REVEN U E SERVICE, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E”( 5 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion to rem and this m atter to the 24th J udicial District Court for the Parish of J efferson, State of Louisiana. 1 For the reasons that follow, the m otion is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D On October 15, 20 15, Plaintiff Cyril J . Harvey and Doris D. Harvey (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandam us in the 24th J udicial District Court for J efferson Parish, Louisiana. 2 Plaintiffs nam ed the following individuals and entities as Defendants: (1) the Internal Revenue Service, through an unknown agent; (2) the Louisiana Departm ent of Revenue, through Secretary Tim Barfield; and (3) J on Gegenheim er, J efferson Parish Clerk of Court and Recorder of Mortgages. 3 Plaintiffs seek an order, in part, com pelling the IRS to “furnish a verifiable tax return, verified and signed assessm ents, [an] affidavit of the collector, [and] lawful notice of distraint and/ or [an] ‘instrum ent’ substantiating a valid claim for years 20 0 5 through 20 13.”4 1 R. Doc. 6. See R. Doc. 1-2. 3 See generally R. Doc. 1-2. 4 R. Doc. 1-2 at 25. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Defendant, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), filed a Notice of Rem oval on Novem ber 17, 20 15. 5 The m atter was rem oved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 and 1446. 6 Plaintiffs now seek to rem and the case to state court. 7 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Title 28, United States Code, Section 1442(a)(1) provides for the rem oval of an action directed against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claim ed under any Act of Congress for . . . the collection of the revenue.” Plaintiffs’ state-court lawsuit nam es an unknown agent of the Internal Revenue Service as a defendant. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit relates to the collection of revenue, as contem plated by section 1442(a)(1). Title 28, United States Code, Section 1442(a)(1) clearly provides for the rem oval to federal court of such actions against officers, agents, or agencies of the United States. This m atter is properly in federal court. Plaintiffs’ m otion to rem and is, as a result, D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 n d d ay o f March , 2 0 16 . ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 5 R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 1 at 1. 7 See generally R. Doc. 6. 6 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.