Edwards et al v. Internal Revenue Services et al

Filing 28

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 8 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(knmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

F. ANTHONY EDWARDS, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-02852-VC

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

9
10

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 15, 17

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The government's motion to dismiss is granted. In their complaint, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards

13

seek to prevent the government from taking action to enforce a tax judgment against them that

14

they claim would result in closure of their medical business. They contend that due process

15

requires a hearing before the government takes such action. However, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards

16

entered into a settlement and a stipulated judgment in Case No. 07-6447-MMC (N.D. Cal.),

17

whereby they agreed to make monthly payments to the government in satisfaction of their tax

18

debt. Mr. and Mrs. Edwards concede they are in violation of the terms of that agreement because

19

they have not made the required monthly payments, and they concede they agreed that in the event

20

of default the government was entitled to enforce the judgment to the full extent of the law. They

21

cannot now file a separate federal lawsuit complaining that the government has violated their due

22

process rights by doing exactly what they agreed it could do in connection with the prior stipulated

23

judgment.

24

Furthermore, in this case the Court has now held a hearing on the government's motion to

25

dismiss, in addition to considering written arguments submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. In the

26

hearing, it became apparent that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards are attempting to use this lawsuit, which

27

has no merit, as a means to force the government to investigate what they claim to be alleged

28

accounting errors in its collection practices. If indeed there are such errors, they would not be

1

grounds for a separate civil rights suit.

2

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: September 16, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2