USA v. Espinar
Filing
19
ORDER re: Show Cause Hearing. See attached Order for details and deadlines. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/4/2017. (Kaczmarek, S.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
UNITED STATES
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHNATHAN ESPINAR
:
:
------------------------------x
Civ. No. 3:16MC00212(AWT)
January 4, 2017
ORDER RE: SHOW CAUSE HEARING
On January 4, 2017, the Court held a Show Cause Hearing as
to why the respondent Johnathan Espinar (“respondent”) should
not be held in contempt for failing to obey this Court’s Orders.
Assistant United States Attorney Natalie Elicker appeared for
the petitioner United States (“petitioner”), and was accompanied
by Revenue Officer Doreen M. Murray. The respondent appeared at
the hearing. After an off-the-record examination by the Revenue
Officer, the petitioner indicated that the respondent has now
provided certain documents that were in the possession of his
accountant, in partial satisfaction of the April 7, 2016,
Internal Revenue Service Summons. However, complete compliance
has not been achieved. The petitioner indicated that the
respondent has agreed to contact six additional entities to
obtain relevant records subject to the April 7, 2016, summons.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
On or before the close of business of January 6, 2017, the
respondent shall make a formal request for the relevant
~ 1 ~
documents to each of the following entities: (1) the Town of
Farmington Assessor’s Office; (2) The City of Hartford
Assessment Division; (3) Nationstar Mortgage LLC; (4) T.D. Bank;
(5) Advantage Payroll Services; and (6) the respondent’s
personal and business insurance company. Each request shall be
made either in person, or in writing, in addition to any
communications by phone. The respondent shall document all
efforts to obtain the relevant records, including but not
limited to maintaining copies of all written requests sent for
the records, and documenting the contact information for each
individual communicated with at each entity contacted by the
respondent.
If any of the remaining records are not received by January
20, 2017, the respondent shall submit a second round of requests
to each entity that has not responded, and shall again document
all efforts to obtain the relevant records.
As materials are received, the respondent shall provide
them promptly to the Revenue Officer.
On or before 4:00 p.m. on January 27, 2017, the respondent
shall file a report, informing the Court of the status of each
of the requests to the above entities, and of whether the
relevant documentation has been provided to the petitioner. This
report shall be hand-filed with the Office of the Clerk at the
~ 2 ~
United States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, New Haven,
Connecticut, on or before 4:00 p.m. on January 27, 2017.
The respondent is hereby ORDERED to appear before the
undersigned on February 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5
of the United States Courthouse, 141 Church Street, New Haven,
Connecticut for a continued Show Cause Hearing.
The respondent is hereby advised that failure to comply
with any portion of this Court’s Order may result in the
imposition of sanctions. As discussed in open court at today’s
hearing, failure to comply with the Court’s Orders may result in
the issuance of an order of civil contempt and a warrant for the
respondent’s arrest.
This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is a case management
order which is reviewable pursuant to the “clearly erroneous”
statutory standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2. As such, it is
an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by the
District Judge upon motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 4th day of
January, 2017.
__
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
~ 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?