Goldsmith, Esq. v. Internal Revenue Service et al

Filing 56

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 53 Motion for Relief from Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/21/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JONATHAN GOLDSMITH, ESQ., an individual, 5 Plaintiff, vs. 6 7 8 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, a United States Government Entity, 9 Defendant. 10 11 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-01297-GMN-NJK ORDER Pending before the Court is the Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 53) filed by 12 Plaintiff Jonathan Goldsmith, Esq. (“Plaintiff”). Defendant Internal Revenue Service (the 13 “IRS”) filed a Response (ECF No. 55). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is 14 DENIED. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 This case arises out of an alleged violation by the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) of 28 U.S.C. 6331(k). On August 7, 2014, Plaintiff filled a Complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging that the IRS had levied funds in volition of 26 U.S.C. § 6331(k)(2)(A), which bars the levying of property for unpaid taxes when an installment agreement is pending, and in violation of § 6331(k)(2)(C), which bars the levying of property for unpaid taxes when an installment agreement is in effect. (Compl. ¶¶ 89–90, ECF No. 1). On September 23, 2014, the IRS filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), arguing that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies with the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C § 7433(d) prior to filing his Complaint.1 On April 23 24 25 1 Section 7433(a) creates a civil cause of action for violation of any provision of that title, or any regulation promulgated under that title, against the government when committed recklessly, intentionally, or by reason of negligence by the IRS or its agents. 26 U.S.C § 7433(a); Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 432 (9th Cir. Page 1 of 3 1 7, 2015, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s § 6331(k)(2)(A) and § 6331(k)(2)(C) claims without 2 prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 51). 3 On the same day, April 7, 2015, after this Court issued its Order, Plaintiff filled the 4 instant Motion for Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff makes two arguments in his 5 motion. First, Plaintiff argues that this Court should grant him relief from judgment in light of 6 new evidence, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Mot. for 7 Relief 3:13–25). Specifically, Plaintiff requests this Court consider the IRS’s letter denying 8 Plaintiff’s administrative claim, dated February 24, 2015, and grant Plaintiff relief from this 9 Court’s earlier judgment based on this new evidence. (Id. at 3:14–17; IRS Letter, ECF No. 53- 10 1). Second, Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief from judgment to “correct a clear and 11 manifest injustice.” (Id. 4:2–16). 12 Although Plaintiff presents evidence that he has now exhausted his administrative 13 remedies, Plaintiff did not exhaust these remedies before the filing of his Complaint in this 14 Court. See Gray v. United States, 723 F.3d 795, 802 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e conclude that 26 15 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1) can reasonably be interpreted to require exhaustion of administrative 16 remedies before suit.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief from judgment pursuant 17 to Rule 60(b). However, because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action without prejudice, 18 Plaintiff can to refile his Complaint before the expiration of the statute of limitations. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 24 25 2000). Thus, Plaintiff’s civil claims for the IRS’s alleged violations of § 6331 are only actionable through § 7433. Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 I. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 53) is DENIED. 21 DATED this _____ day of October, 2015. 5 6 7 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 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?