United States of America v. Young et al

Filing 19

ORDER 13 Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) is denied. Defendants shall file answers to the complaint within 14 days from the date of this order. The corporate Defendants may file an answer only through licensed counsel. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/15/11.(KMG)

United States of America v. Young et al

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Sheila Young; Deane Young; Kennith Defoor; Accurate Consulting, LLC; and D4 Accounting, Consulting, Tax Services, Inc., Defendants. The United States filed a complaint for injunctive relief on October 4, 2010, alleging Defendants promote fraudulent tax schemes and have prepared hundreds of frivolous tax returns resulting in the issuance of more than two million dollars in erroneous refunds. Doc. 1. On October 15, 2010, each individual Defendant filed an "affidavit of notary presentment" (Docs. 5, 6, 7), which were construed as motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motions were denied in an order dated December 9, 2010. Doc. 11. The individual Defendants have filed a new motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 13. The government has responded. Doc. 14. No party has requested oral argument. The motion will be denied. As previously explained (Doc. 11), the Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal tax case (see Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3-4), and the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they are residents or citizens of Arizona (see id. ¶¶ 6-10; Docs. 5, 6, 7 at 2). The complaint more than satisfies the minimal pleading requirements No. CV-10-8193-PCT-DGC ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of Rule 8, and the factual allegations, when accepted as true, state a plausible claim to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The motion to dismiss will be denied. As a "federal corporation," Defendants argue, the United States lacks standing to file a civil complaint against "living, breathing, people who are in possession of a soul." Doc. 13 at 1-2. Defendants further argue that the complaint must be dismissed because they are in receipt of no government document showing a "violation of a known legal duty." Id. at 3. These arguments are wholly without merit. Defendants shall file answers to the complaint within 14 days from the date of this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Defendants are reminded (see Doc. 11) that the corporate Defendants may file an answer and otherwise appear in this case only through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201-202 (1993); D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004). IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) is denied. Defendants shall file answers to the complaint within 14 days from the date

of this order. The corporate Defendants may file an answer only through licensed counsel. 3. The Court will set a case management conference by separate order.

Dated this 15th day of March, 2011.

-2-