United States of America v. Hiramanek

Filing 28

ORDER DENYING 26 EXPEDITED REQUEST TO CORRECT THE MISUNDERSTOOD DOCKET # 21. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/6/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-03389-BLF

v.
ADIL HIRAMANEK,
Respondent.

ORDER DENYING EXPEDITED
REQUEST TO CORRECT THE
MISUNDERSTOOD DOCKET # 21
[Re: ECF 26]

12
13

On June 30, 2017, Respondent Adil Hiramanek filed an “expedited request to correct the

14

misunderstood docket # 21; alternatively request a CMC.” Mot., ECF 26. In this request, Mr.

15

Hiramanek essentially asks the Court to reconsider its prior order granting Respondent’s request

16

for clarification. ECF 22. Mr. Hiramanek indicates that the Court misunderstood his prior request

17

because it issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) regarding the enforcement of the Internal

18

Revenue Service (“IRS”)’s summons rather than permitting an intervening response to the

19

Government’s petition. Mot. 1; see OSC, ECF 23. Given the posture of Respondent’s paper, the

20

Court construes it as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and the motion for

21

reconsideration itself. Because Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) requires parties to obtain leave of Court

22

before filing a motion for reconsideration, in this order, the Court addresses only the motion for

23

leave to file a motion for reconsideration, which the Court DENIES.

24

Mr. Hiramanek’s primary argument is that the Government’s petition to enforce the IRS

25

summons should be treated as a complaint, and therefore, he should be entitled to file an

26

intervening response to the petition before any OSC is issued. Mot. 1. In part, Mr. Hiramanek

27

relies on Wild v. United States, 362 F.2d 206, 209 (9th Cir. 1966). Respondent’s reliance on Wild,

28

however, is unavailing. In Wild, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting the

1

IRS’s petition for enforcement of a summons. In so doing, the Ninth Circuit found that the

2

appellants had not been denied their procedural rights where they had an opportunity to answer the

3

petition and a hearing. 362 F.2d at 209; see also United States v. Benoit, No. 06CV657, 2006 WL

4

1867930, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2006) (denying respondent’s request for additional time to

5

respond to the Government’s petition to enforce an IRS summons where respondent filed a motion

6

to dismiss in response to the petition because he “was provided with an opportunity to respond” to

7

the petition through his motion to dismiss).
Here, the Court has afforded Mr. Hiramanek the same opportunity to respond to the

8

petition and to have a hearing. See generally OSC (allowing Respondent to file a response to the

10

petition at least 21 days before the hearing and setting a hearing on the OSC). At the August 10

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

hearing on the OSC, the Court will hear argument from both Petitioner and Respondent and

12

determine whether the IRS summons should be enforced based upon that hearing and the

13

submitted papers. And, Mr. Hiramanek has filed a motion to dismiss in a related case, which will

14

also be heard on August 10, 2017.1 See United States v. Hiramanek, No. 17-cv-3392, ECF 23.
Accordingly, Respondent has provided no adequate basis upon which the Court could

15
16

grant his motion, and thus, the Court DENIES the motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: July 6, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court has set a hearing on Respondent’s motion to dismiss for August 10, 2017. See No.
17-cv-3392, ECF 25. Respondent’s motion to dismiss will be heard along with the separate orders
to show cause why the IRS summons should not be enforced. Mr. Hiramanek shall be prepared to
respond to the Government’s petitions to enforce the IRS summons as well as to discuss his
motion to dismiss at the hearing.
2