United States v. Shearer et al
Filing
150
ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 7/20/23 DENYING 148 defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. No further motions for reconsideration will be entertained by the Court. (Kastilahn, A)
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
No. 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB
Plaintiff,
13
v.
ORDER
14
L. RICHARD SHEARER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Defendant Diane Shearer is seeking reconsideration of the Court’s denial of her
17
18
prior Motion to Set Aside Partial Summary Judgement (“Motion to Set Aside”), which
19
alleged that newly discovered evidence showed that the amount of judgement was
20
erroneous, and that the Government had committed fraud and/or misconduct.
21
Defendant Shearer now brings the present motion contending that this Court
22
committed error in denying the Motion to Set Aside. (ECF No. 148.)
For the reasons below, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
23
24
I.
Background
25
On September 11, 2012, Plaintiff brought this suit following the disposition of a
26
criminal matter which determined that Defendant Richard L. Shearer had engaged in a
27
scheme to conceal income from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) through a series
28
of sham trusts. See United States v. Bullock, No. 2:00-cr-00345-KJM-4 (E. D. Cal.). This
1
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 2 of 6
1
suit was brought by Plaintiff to assess the federal tax liability against Defendants L.
2
Richard Shearer and Diane Shearer, to adjudicate the legal status of alleged trusts
3
used by the Shearers, and to foreclose tax liens against certain properties. (First Am.
4
Compl. (ECF No. 4) ¶ 1.)
5
The Court previously granted Partial Summary Judgement to Plaintiff on the
6
basis that the Shearers owed unpaid taxes and acted with intent to defraud the
7
Government, making them liable for fraud penalties. (See generally ECF No. 86.) The
8
Court entered judgement based on the balances calculated by the IRS and presented
9
to the Court by Plaintiff. (Id. at 11–12.) At the time, Defendants did not challenge the
10
11
calculations. (Id.) Judgement was entered August 7, 2018. (ECF No. 87.)
In early 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Financial Litigation Unit found that a restitution
12
check which L. Shearer had been ordered to pay in his criminal case had been
13
erroneously made out to the unit instead of being paid to the IRS. (ECF No. 141 at 31–
14
32.) Because this payment was not received, it had not been credited to the Shearers’
15
tax liability at the time of the August 7, 2018 judgement. (Id. at 31–34.) The U.S.
16
Attorney notified the Court, and the funds were release to the IRS. See United States
17
v. Bullock, No. 2:00-cr-00345-KJM-4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2022). The IRS then credited the
18
Shearers’ account with the payment. (ECF No. 141 at 31–32.)
19
On May 12, 2023, Defendant brought the Motion to Set Aside, arguing that the
20
evidence presented to the Court at summary judgement was erroneous. (ECF No.
21
141 at 1–4.) Defendant argued that a $5,000 restitution payment made by L. Richard
22
Shearer in the criminal matter, which had been made out to the incorrect party and
23
was therefore not deducted from the Shearers’ tax liability until it was discovered by
24
the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2022, was newly discovered evidence which warranted
25
setting aside the judgement. Defendant also argued that the Government had
26
engaged misconduct by not discovering the error sooner, and submitting an
27
inaccurate accounting with the Motion for Summary Judgement. (Id.) Defendant
28
further alleged that the interest payments had been incorrectly calculated, and that a
2
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 3 of 6
1
levy against the Regency Trust, a separate defendant in this case, had not been
2
applied to the Shearers’ account. (Id.) Throughout her Motion to Set Aside, as well as
3
her Brief in Support of her Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 149,) Defendant
4
listed a host of other allegations and arguments, including personal attacks on the
5
Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California and this Court, and allegations that the
6
U.S. Attorney’s Office knowingly engaged in misconduct. (ECF No. 141 at 33–42; see
7
generally ECF No. 149.)
8
9
On June 15, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside, but
modified and reduced the judgement against Defendant to correct the oversight or
10
omission which led to the $5,000 restitution payment not being applied to
11
Defendants’ liability. (ECF No. 146.) On June 30, 2023, Defendant brought the
12
present motion asking the Court to reconsider setting aside summary judgement.
13
(Mot. (ECF No. 148).)
14
II.
Legal Standard for Motion for Reconsideration
15
A motion for reconsideration may be granted if the district court is presented
16
with “newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
17
change in the controlling law.” Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th
18
Cir.1999). “[T]he rule offers an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
19
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate
20
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Moore's Federal Practice
21
§ 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise
22
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
23
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.; see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos
24
Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
25
26
III.
Discussion
Defendant is effectively arguing that this Court committed clear error in
27
denying the Motion to Set Aside Partial Summary Judgement. A motion to set aside a
28
judgement may be granted by a Court for, inter alia:
3
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 4 of 6
1
2
3
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party . . . .
4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A party making a Rule 60 motion must show the evidence (1)
5
existed at the time of trial or when the order was entered; (2) could not have been
6
discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (3) was of such magnitude that
7
the production of it would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.”
8
Hollis-Arrington v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., No. CV-015658-CBM-AJW, 2003 WL
9
27376890, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2003). In addition, a motion based on the above-
10
listed reasons must be made within one year of the date of judgement. Fed. R. Civ. P.
11
60(c)(1).
12
Defendant’s initial motion was brought on the basis that the IRS’s failure to
13
apply the $5,000 restitution payment, which had been made out to the incorrect party
14
and was therefore not deducted from Defendant’s tax liability until it was discovered
15
by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2022, constituted newly discovered evidence, and
16
represents misconduct and fraud on the part of the U.S. Attorney. Defendant also
17
raised arguments contesting the IRS’s calculation of the Shearers’ tax liability which
18
had been presented with Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement. In her Motion for
19
Reconsideration, Defendant asserts for the first time that the IRS had incorrectly
20
calculated the fraud penalty. Plaintiff likewise argues that these calculation errors are
21
newly discovered evidence.
22
Setting aside the issue that Defendant Shearer’s request was made nearly four
23
years too late, the Court had determined that the evidence Defendant presented was
24
not “newly discovered evidence” for the purpose of a Motion to Set Aside. (ECF No.
25
146.) The alleged errors in calculating the tax liability, including whether certain
26
payments were properly applied to Defendants’ accounts “could have been
27
discovered through the exercise of diligence prior to the entry of judgment.” Hollis-
28
Arrington v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., No. CV015658CBMAJWX, 2003 WL 27376890, at
4
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 5 of 6
1
*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2003). Plaintiff submitted the full IRS accounting with its Motion
2
for Summary Judgement, and Defendant had an opportunity to contest the
3
accounting either on the basis that payments were missing, or that the interest or
4
fraud penalty were miscalculated, but failed to do so. As the Court stated, “[t]he
5
Shearers have not identified any facts to cast doubt on the accuracy of the
6
government’s data, calculations, or application of applicable percentages, such as
7
which interest rate or fraud penalty percentage apply.” (ECF No. 86 at 12.) Defendant
8
may not now come to the Court nearly five years later and present expert testimony
9
that she could have secured at the time of the Motion for Summary Judgement.
10
Moreover, the alleged discrepancy in calculations would not have affected the
11
underlying determination that Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgement against
12
Defendants as a matter of law, it would only marginally alter the judgement amount.
13
This circumstance would therefore not have warranted setting aside the finding of
14
partial summary judgement. Hollis-Arrington v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 2003 WL
15
27376890, at *3 (finding that the evidence was not “of such magnitude as to change
16
the outcome of the case” and therefore did not warrant setting aside the judgement);
17
accord Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.
18
1987).
19
Despite Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside being time barred and failing as a
20
matter of law, the Court sua sponte corrected the accounting error pursuant to the
21
Court’s authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) by reducing the amount
22
of judgement. Defendant now asserts that the true amount of the restitution was
23
$5,178.16, despite having stated numerous times in her Motion to Set Aside that it
24
was $5,000. If this was the amount that Defendant believed should have been
25
credited to her account, she should have stated that. In any event, the IRS has
26
credited the full amount of the restitution check to the Shearers’ account. (See ECF
27
No. 144 at 2–3.)
28
Defendant’s additional argument that the IRS failed to apply a levy against the
5
Case 2:12-cv-02334-DJC-DB Document 150 Filed 07/21/23 Page 6 of 6
1
Regency Trust to the Shearers’ tax liability is irrelevant, unsupported by the evidence,
2
and again, not newly discovered evidence which would support setting aside the
3
judgement. The Regency Trust is a separate defendant in this case and there has
4
been no ruling on the tax liability of the Regency Trust at this stage. To the extent the
5
Regency Trust is found to be liable, Defendant may contest the amount of liability or
6
the Plaintiff’s accounting at that stage. Further, Defendant does not present evidence
7
of such a payment ever having been made, stating that “the levy does not show on the
8
Shearer’s personal tax transcript or the Regency Trust transcript as credit.” (ECF No.
9
148 at 2.) Finally, similar to the above contested calculations, the levy payment is not
10
newly discovered evidence, nor would it warrant setting aside the summary
11
judgement ruling.
12
The other arguments made by Defendant, including that the U.S. Attorney’s
13
Office conspired against Defendant, violated service of process in the separate
14
criminal case, and violated the rules of professional conduct, and that this Court
15
engaged in misconduct and denied Defendant due process, are wholly without merit.
16
IV.
Conclusion
17
For the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for
18
Reconsideration is DENIED. No further motions for reconsideration will be
19
entertained by the Court.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated:
July 20, 2023
Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
DJC2 — 12cv02334.mfr2
28
6
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?