United States of America v. Ivan M. Forbes et al

Filing 30

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS SECOND RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT 27 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 11/19/2014 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
IVAN M. FORBES; ELKE J.
FORBES,

15
16

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-03884 DDP (Ex)
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’
“SECOND RESPONSE TO SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT”
[DOCKET NUMBER 27]

17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike

19

Defendants’ “Second Response to Summons and Complaint,” (Dkt. No.

20

26), in its entirety.

21

Defendants’ first “Response to Summons and Complaint” as being

22

entirely composed of immaterial statements and insufficient

23

defenses.

24

the same arguments as Defendants’ first “Response”: namely, that

25

jurisdiction is not proper and that Plaintiff was required to

26

verify the allegations in the Complaint with sworn declarations.

27

(Dkt. No. 26 at ¶¶ 2-4.)

28

cognizable objection to the Court’s jurisdiction, and as it is

(Dkt. No. 27.)

(Dkt. No. 25.)

The Court previously struck

The “Second Response” rehearses exactly

As Defendants have still not stated a

1

still the case that the Complaint need not be supported by sworn

2

declarations, these arguments are no more availing here than they

3

were the first time.

4

Defendants also apparently argue that the United States is not

5

the “real party in interest” in this case, and they ask the Court

6

to “compel the real party in interest in this action.”

7

5.)

8

statute, the correct party to bring an action to collect taxes owed

9

to the United States government:

(Id. at ¶

The United States government is self-evidently, and by

10

The district courts of the United States at the instance of

11

the United States shall have such jurisdiction . . . to render

12

such judgments and decrees as may be necessary or appropriate

13

for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. The remedies

14

hereby provided are in addition to and not exclusive of any

15

and all other remedies of the United States in such courts or

16

otherwise to enforce such laws.

17

26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) (emphases added).

18

party to the action.

19

There is no other necessary

Because Defendants’ “Second Response” is, much like the first,

20

unresponsive to the Complaint, and because it still states no

21

sufficient defenses, the motion to strike is GRANTED.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: November 19, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2