United States of America v. Shirley Chang et al

Filing 32

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 31 by Judge David O. Carter: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: On December 23, 2015, the United States and Shirley Yu filed a joint stipulation for entry of a judgment resolving Count I[Dkt. 27.] On Decembe r 28, 2015, this Court granted the stipulation for entry of judgment[Dkt. 29.] On January 4, 2016, this Court entered an order for entry of judgment against Shirley Yu and in favor of the United States[Dkt. 30]; After resolving Court I, the parties h ave now entered into a Stipulation to resolve Court II; Based upon the parties' stipulation to resolve Count II, the Court grants the parties' stipulation and orders that judgment should be entered in favor of the United States and against Hon Yu, M.D.., Inc., in the amount of $200,000. See document for further information. (lwag)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney SANDRA R. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Tax Division BENJAMIN L. TOMPKINS (SBN 305024) Assistant United States Attorney Federal Building, Suite 7516 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-6165 Facsimile: (213) 894-0115 E-mail: benjamin.tompkins@usdoj.gov 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 17 18 SHIRLEY CHANG a/k/a SHIRLEY YU, HON YU, MD, INC., and HON YU, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 ) ) Case No.: 8:14-cv-01775-DOC-RNB ) ) XXXXXX ORDER FOR ENTRY OF [Proposed] ) JUDGMENT [31] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Based on the stipulation between Plaintiff United States of America (“United 23 States”) and Defendants Shirley Chang a/k/a Shirley Yu (“Shirley Yu”), Dr. Hon Yu 24 (“Dr. Yu”), and Hon Yu, M.D., Inc., through their undersigned counsel, and for good 25 26 cause appearing herein: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 27 1. On November 6, 2014, the United States filed this action to seek a judgment 28 against Shirley Yu in excess of $3 million for her unpaid trust fund recovery penalties for various periods from 2007 through 2009 (“Count I”); and to foreclose an Internal 1 Revenue Service lien and sell Shirley Yu’s community property interest in the shares of 2 Hon Yu, MD, Inc., her now ex-husband’s medical practice (“Count II”). [Dkt. 1] 3 4 5 2. On January 2, 2015, Shirley Yu, Dr. Hon Yu and Hon Yu, MD, Inc., filed their answer to the United States’ complaint. [Dkts. 18 & 20.] 3. On December 23, 2015, the United States and Shirley Yu filed a joint 6 stipulation for entry of a judgment resolving Count I. [Dkt. 27.] On December 28, 7 2015, this Court granted the stipulation for entry of judgment. [Dkt. 29.] On January 4, 8 2016, this Court entered an order for entry of judgment against Shirley Yu and in favor 9 of the United States. [Dkt. 30.] 10 11 12 4. After resolving Count I, the parties have now entered into a Stipulation to resolve Count II. 5. Based upon the parties’ stipulation to resolve Count II, the Court grants the 13 parties’ stipulation and orders that judgment should be entered in favor of the United 14 States and against Hon Yu, M.D., Inc., in the amount of $200,000. 15 16 6. Additional interest and other statutory additions on this judgment will continue to accrue after this judgment is entered. 17 7. This judgment resolves Count II. 18 8. Each side will bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: February 2, 2016 DAVID O. CARTER United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 Respectfully Presented, EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney SANDRA R. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Tax Division 5 6 7 8 /s/ BENJAMIN L. TOMPKINS Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for the United States of America 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?