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)

Download PDF
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

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?