United States of America v. Caraway et al

Filing 62

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Granting 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,
Defendants.
/

15

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

14

16

No. C 08-4371 MMC

Before the Court is plaintiff United States of America’s (“plaintiff”) motion for
summary judgment, filed April 22, 2010.1 No opposition has been filed.2 After reviewing
the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for
decision thereon, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 27, 2011, and rules as
follows.
In support of its motion, plaintiff has submitted for the tax years 1995 and 1998,
respectively, “Certificate[s] of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters,”
which certificates are entitled to a presumption of correctness, see U.S. v. Fior D’Italia, Inc.,
536 U.S. 238, 242 (2002) (noting “[i]t is well established in the tax law that an assessment

25
26
27

1

On December 14, 2010, the Court, pursuant to stipulation, entered partial
judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $163,897.25.
2

28

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, opposition by defendant Douglas
R. Caraway (“defendant”) was due no later than May 6, 2011. See Civil L. R. 7-3(a)
(providing opposition to motion must be filed no later than 21 days before hearing date).

1

is entitled to a legal presumption of correctness”), and, absent evidence to the contrary,

2

satisfy plaintiff’s burden of proof, see U.S. v. Pierce, 609 F.2d 407, 408 (9th Cir. 1979)

3

(upholding summary judgment based on uncontroverted tax assessment). Said certificates

4

reflect a “balance” of $15,059.79 for tax year 1995 and a “balance” of $2,677.31 for tax

5

year 1998. (See Stamm Decl., filed Apr. 22, 2011, Exs. 1, 2.)

6

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and plaintiff shall have partial

7

judgment against defendant in the total amount of $17,737.10, together with statutory

8

interest thereon until paid.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: May 25, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2