United States of America et al v. Blot

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/5/2010 10:30 AM. Show Cause Response due by 4/21/2010. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/23/2010. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JEAN-SEBASTIEN BLOT, Respondent. ___________________________________/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT (Docket No. 13) No. C-09-3722 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioners have filed an application to reopen the case and have asked for the issuance of an order to show cause regarding contempt. Having reviewed the application, the Court hereby grants the requested relief. Petitioners initiated this litigation seeking enforcement of an IRS summons in August 2009. Both Petitioners and Respondent consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (providing that, "[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case"); Docket Nos. 4, 11 (consent). The parties ultimately stipulated to a dismissal of the case after they reached an agreement that Respondent would provide the documents requested in the IRS summons. See Docket No. 12 (stipulation and order). As part of the stipulation, the parties also agreed that the case could be reopened "by either party should any disagreement arise regarding whether respondent has fully complied with the summons." Docket No. 12 (Stip. 5). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 According to Petitioners, Respondent has failed to fully comply with the summons, thus necessitating the request to reopen the case. Petitioners have provided evidence to support their contention that there has been a failure to comply. See Newman Decl. 5. The Court therefore grants Petitioners' request that the case be reopened, consistent with the terms of the parties' stipulation. In their papers, Petitioners have also asked for the issuance of an order to show cause regarding contempt. More specifically, Petitioners have asked that the undersigned conduct a hearing as to whether Respondent should be held in contempt, thereafter certify facts to a district judge regarding the contempt issue, and finally require Respondent to appear before the district judge to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. See 28 U.S.C. 636(e)(6)(B)(iii). The Court need not follow the procedure contained in 636(e)(6)(B)(iii) because, in this case, the parties have consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge and Petitioners appear to be asking for civil contempt only. Therefore, 636(e)(4) is applicable. See id. 636(e)(4) (providing that, "[i]n any case in which a United States magistrate judge presides with the consent of the parties under subsection (c) of this section, . . . the magistrate judge may exercise the civil contempt authority of the district court"). Accordingly, the Court hereby issues on its own authority an order to show cause. Respondent is ordered to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to produce documents responsive to the IRS summons by the agreed-upon date (i.e., January 30, 2010). See Docket No. 12 (Stip. 1). By April 21, 2010, Respondent may file a brief and any supporting evidence (e.g., a declaration submitted under penalty of perjury) to show why he should not be held in contempt. The Court shall hold a hearing as to whether Respondent should be held in contempt on May 5, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. /// /// /// /// /// United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Petitioners are ordered to serve a copy of this order on Respondent so that it is received no later than March 31, 2010. Service shall be made in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 23, 2010 EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 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?