United States of America v. Ingram
Filing
12
ORDER VACATING February 22, 2017 Hearing signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/15/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
12
13
Case No. 1:16-cv-01663-AWI-SAB
ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 22, 2017
HEARING
v.
(ECF No. 4)
14
15
JAMES W INGRAM,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner United States of America filed a petition to enforce an Internal Revenue
18 Service (“IRS”) summons on November 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On November 7, 2016, an order
19 issued requiring Respondent James W. Ingram to show cause why the IRS summons should not
20 be enforced. (ECF No. 4.) On January 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to permit alternate
21 service which was denied on January 10, 2017. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) On January 12, 2017, a
22 certificate of service was filed. (ECF No. 11.)
23
The November 7, 2016 order to show cause required Respondent to file and serve his
24 defense or opposition to the petition to enforce the summons at least ten days prior to the
25 hearing. (ECF No. 4 at 2.) The hearing is to be held in less than ten days and Respondent has
26 not filed a response or otherwise responded to the November 7, 2016 order.
27
The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “No party will be
28 entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not
1
1 been timely filed by that party.” L.R. 230(c). Therefore, t he previously scheduled hearing set on
2 February 22, 2017 shall be vacated.
Accordingly, the hearing set for February 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 is
3
4 HEREBY VACATED. The parties will not be required to appear at that time.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated:
February 15, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?