USA v. Pfeifer
Filing
20
SECOND ORDER re 13 MOTION for Contempt or in the Alternative to Show Cause why Respondent Should not be Held in Civil Contempt and Memorandum in Support filed by USA. The Court hereby reissues its prior Order finding Respondent in civil contempt. The Court orders issuance of a warrant for Respondents arrest. The arrest warrant will be executed unless by the end of business on June 27, 2016 (5:00 p.m.), Respondent provides the documents, records, and data required by the IRS summons and described in the attached order. The United States Marshal is DIRECTED, to serve a copy of this order on respondent. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/15/2016. (dsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No. 15-cv-1230-DRH-DGW
JEFFREY J. PFEIFER, as President of
Alton Medical Rehabilitation S.C.,
Respondent.
SECOND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER1
Finding Respondent in Contempt
HERNDON, District Judge:
CAUSE BEFORE THE COURT on the order requiring Respondent Jeffrey
J. Pfeifer, as President of Alton Medical Rehabilitation S.C., to appear in person
before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois in East
St. Louis on Thursday, June 2, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (Doc. 15). For the reasons
set forth, the Court finds Respondent in civil contempt for violating orders of this
Court and imposes the following sanction:
1. On April 14, 2016, Respondent, in violation of this Court’s orders, failed
to appear at a hearing where he was to show cause why he should not be
compelled to comply with the IRS summons issued to him.
1
This Order was originally filed on June 2, 2016 and directed respondent to comply by June 13,
2016 (Doc. 18). The government attempted to serve the June 2, 2016 Order via certified mail.
However, the government has not yet received a return receipt from the U.S. Post Office. Given the
absence of a return receipt, the Court is allowing the respondent one more opportunity to comply
prior to issuance of a warrant. Therefore, the Court is reissuing the June 2, 2016 Order, with a
revised date of compliance, and directing service via U.S. Marshals.
2. On April 18, 2016, the Court entered an order for Respondent to obey
the aforementioned IRS summons by testifying and producing the
documents, records, and data required by the terms of the summons,
including but not limited to providing:
o A fully completed and executed Form 433B to include proof of
expenses;
o The last 4 months of ALL bank statements;
o Identification of all accounts receivable to include amounts and
dates;
o Proof of rent/mortgage payments, including any payoff(s), the
monthly payment amount(s), and/or a payoff date(s);
o Proof of any vehicle(s) owned by the business to include any
payoff(s), monthly payment amount(s), and/or payoff date(s); and
o Proof of insurance payments made by the taxpayer related to the
operation of his business, e.g., malpractice insurance, etc.
(See Doc. 11). The Court ordered Respondent to appear in person with
the requisite information at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of Illinois on Thursday, April 28, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (Id.). The
Court warned Respondent that failure to comply with the order could
result in a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of sanctions,
including fines and imprisonment. (Id.).
3. On April 28, 2016, in violation of this Court’s order, Respondent failed
to appear at the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
4. Accordingly, on May 5, 2016, this Court ordered Respondent to appear
in person before the United States District Court for the Southern
Page 2 of 4
District of Illinois in East St. Louis on Thursday, June 2, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to
obey the Court’s order to appear at the April 14, 2016 hearing and for
failure to obey the Court’s order issued on April 18, 2016, directing
Respondent to comply with the IRS summons. (Doc. 15). The Court
warned Respondent that failure to comply with the order could result in
a finding of civil contempt and the imposition of sanctions, including
fines and imprisonment. (Id.).
5. On June 2, 2016, in violation of this Court’s order, Respondent failed to
appear before the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois in East St. Louis.
6. Respondent’s failure to appear at the June 2, 2016 show cause hearing
represents yet another failure by Respondent to comply with this Court’s
orders despite the Court’s warnings that doing so could result in a
finding of civil contempt and the imposition of sanctions, including fines
and imprisonment.
7. The Court, therefore, finds Respondent in civil contempt and orders
issuance of a warrant for Respondent’s arrest. The arrest warrant will
be executed unless by the end of business on June 27, 2016 (5:00
p.m.), Respondent provides the documents, records, and data
required by the IRS summons and described above. Respondent may
arrange to provide Petitioner with the requisite documents, records, and
Page 3 of 4
data by contacting Assistant United States Attorney Nicholas J.
Biersbach at (618) 628-3700.
8. The United States Marshal is DIRECTED, to serve a copy of this
order on respondent. See Fed. R. Civ. 4.1(a).
9. Furthermore, the United States is ordered to file a notice with the Court
if Respondent provides the requisite documents, records, and data by
the end of business on June 27, 2016.
Should Respondent fail to contact Assistant United States Attorney
Biersbach and provide the required documents, records, and data by the end
of business on June 27, 2016, then Respondent will be arrested and
incarcerated until such time as he resolves the contempt by producing the
documents, records, and data he is required to produce in accord with the
IRS summons.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.06.15
12:14:36 -05'00'
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 15, 2016.
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4
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?