BottomLine Lawyers Professional Corporation v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/10/14 ORDERING that the 2/14/14 hearing on the motion to dismiss is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that the 5 Motion to Dismiss be granted and the Petition to Quash be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BOTTOMLINE LAWYERS PC,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:13-mc-0127 GEB DAD

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner Bottomline Lawyers PC, proceeding through attorney Richard A. Hall, filed a

17
18

petition to quash an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §

19

7609(b)(2). The case has been referred to the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to

20

Local Rule 302(c)(10).
On January 8, 2014, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition and noticed the

21
22

matter for hearing before the undersigned on February 14, 2014. (Dkt. No. 5.) Therein,

23

respondent asserts that petitioner’s petition to quash summons should be dismissed because the

24

IRS summons at issue has been withdrawn, thus rendering the petition to moot. (Id. at 1-2.) On

25

January 31, 2014, petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss.

26

(Dkt. No. 6.) Therein, petitioner states that it does not oppose the dismissal of its petition to

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

quash summons.1 (Id. at 1.)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the February 14, 2014 hearing of respondent’s motion

2
3

to dismiss is vacated.

4

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

5

1. Respondent’s January 8, 2014 motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) be granted;

6

2. Petitioner’s petition to quash filed December 11, 2013 (Dkt. No. 2) be

7

dismissed without prejudice; and

8

3. This case be closed.

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

11

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

12

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

14

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

15

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

16

Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

Dated: February 10, 2014

18
19
20

DAD:6
ddad1\orders.civil\bottomline0127.mtd.f&rs.docx

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner also states, however, that “neither petitioner nor its designated agent have been
informed in writing that the Summons in question has been withdraw as required by law.” (Dkt.
No. 6 at 1.) Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that petitioner’s petition be dismissed
without prejudice.
2