Harriet H. Roland, M.B.A., J.D., Ltd. vs Darlene Hickman, et al

Filing 46

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 39 the IRS's motion be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IRS may file motions seeking the forms of relief presented by the instant motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, consistent with the foregoing. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

HARRIET H. ROLAND, M.B.A, J.D., LTD.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1133 JCM (VCF)
ORDER

v.
DARLENE HICKMAN, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendant Internal Revenue Service’s (the “IRS”) motion to

14

alter or amend the judgment, for relief from judgment, and/or to stay the proceedings pending

15

appeal. (ECF Nos. 39, 39-1).

16

On January 30, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granted the IRS’s request to stay the

17

instant motion for 45 days. See (ECF Nos. 43, 44). In addition, defendant’s status report

18

recognized that the stay would last “through March 16, 2017.” (ECF No. 45 at 4). Thus, the stay

19

has expired.

20

The status report also indicated that the IRS intended to discuss a stipulation with the

21

parties that could resolve the case. (Id.) (“If all parties have not reached a complete stipulation by

22

[March 16, 2017], the United States expects to file a motion to resolve the case otherwise.”).

23

However, no stipulation was filed during that time.

24

Moreover, Local Rule IC 2-2(b) states “for each type of relief requested or purpose of the

25

document, a separate document must be filed and a separate event must be selected for that

26

document.”1

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

That rule provides examples, as follows: “(i) separate documents must be filed for a
response to a motion and a countermotion, with the appropriate event selected for each document,
1

1

Here, the instant motion identifies at least three separate requests of the court: (1) “[T]o

2

clarify whether the Order is intended to serve as a ruling on the merits, as well as a remand to state

3

court”; (2) for “the court to alter or amend the judgment, or grant the United States relief from the

4

Order”; and (3) for the court to, alternatively, “stay the judgment pending appeal.” (ECF No. 39

5

at 2). Therefore, this motion is obviously in violation of Local Rule IC 2-2(b) and will therefore

6

be denied, without prejudice.

7

The IRS may submit motions to the court in compliance with Local Rule 2-2(b) and any

8

future motion to reconsider or amend the judgment shall discuss whether applicable Ninth Circuit

9

precedent has come into existence since the court rendered the challenged order. (ECF Nos. 38,

10

39 (“At the least, the case presents an issue of first impression for the Ninth Circuit . . . .”)).

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the IRS’s motion (ECF

13

No. 39) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IRS may file motions seeking the forms of relief

15

presented by the instant motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, consistent

16

with the foregoing.

17
18
19

DATED March 17, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

rather than filing a response and a countermotion in one document; (ii) separate documents must
be filed for a motion to dismiss and a motion to sever, rather than filing a motion to dismiss and to
sever in one document.” LR IC 2-2(b).
-2-