United States of America v. Kuyper et al
Filing
85
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 83 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Hon. Richard G. Kopf on 10/23/13. (SLW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DUANE L. KUYPER individually
)
and as Trustee of KUYPER FAMILY )
LIVING TRUST; MARY L.
)
KUYPER individually and as Trustee )
of KUYPER FAMILY LIVING
)
TRUST; KUYPER FAMILY
)
LIVING TRUST; VISION
)
UNLIMITED; and RAYMOND
)
EHRMAN as Trustee of VISION
)
UNLIMITED,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
4:11CV4170
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
In this action the United States seeks to reduce to judgment tax assessments
against Duane Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living Trust, and to foreclose related
federal tax liens on certain real properties that were transferred by Duane and Mary
Kuyper to Kuyper Family Living Trust and then to Vision Unlimited, another trust
controlled by the Kuypers. The United States alleges that the trusts are alter egos,
nominees, or transferees of Duane Kuyper, and that the true and beneficial owners of
the real properties are Duane and Mary Kuyper.
Duane and Mary Kuyper, who are named as defendants in their individual
capacities,1 failed to appear for their noticed depositions on August 27, 2013. As a
1
Default has been entered against all other defendants for failure to plead or
otherwise defend the action. On April 6, 2012, the clerk of the court entered default
result, the United States has filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(d), which provides in part:
(d)
Party’s Failure to Attend Its Own Deposition, Serve Answers
to Interrogatories, or Respond to a Request for Inspection.
(1)
In General.
(A)
Motion; Grounds for Sanctions. The court where the
action is pending may, on motion, order sanctions if:
(i)
(ii)
(B)
(2)
a party or a party’s officer, director, or
managing agent—or a person designated
under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails, after
being served with proper notice, to appear for
that person’s deposition; or
a party, after being properly served with
interrogatories under Rule 33 or a request for
inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its
answers, objections, or written response.
Certification. A motion for sanctions for failing to
answer or respond must include a certification that
the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted
to confer with the party failing to act in an effort to
obtain the answer or response without court action.
Unacceptable Excuse for Failing to Act. A failure
described in Rule 37(d)(1)(A) is not excused on the ground
that the discovery sought was objectionable, unless the
against Kuyper Family Living Trust (docket no. 33). On March 30, 2013, the clerk
of the court entered default against Vision Unlimited, Raymond Ehrman as Trustee
of Vision Unlimited, and Duane Kuyper and Mary Kuyper as Trustees of Kuyper
Family Living Trust (docket no. 56).
-2-
party failing to act has a pending motion for a protective
order under Rule 26(c).
(3)
Types of Sanctions. Sanctions may include any of the
orders listed in Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi). Instead of or in
addition to these sanctions, the court must require the party
failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to
pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees,
caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially
justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses
unjust.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d).
Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi), the court is authorized to “render[ ] a default
judgment against the disobedient party,” which is the sanction requested by the United
States.2 For the reasons discussed below, I find that the United States’ request, which
the defendants have not actively opposed, should be granted.
There is no question that the Kuypers, who appear pro se in this action,3 were
served with proper notice of their depositions. On August 5, 2013, the United States
sent notices to Duane Kuyper and Mary Kuyper, at their mailing address in Stickney,
South Dakota, stating that their depositions were scheduled for August 27, 2013, at
the United States Attorney’s Office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, at 9:30 a.m. and
11:30 a.m., respectively (docket no. 83-10). On August 22, 2013, the Kuypers filed
2
Alternatively, the United States requests that the defendants be ordered to
appear for depositions, to produce documents that have been requested by the United
States, and to provide satisfactory answers to previously served interrogatories.
3
“A pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer, particularly
here with the fulfilling of simple requirements of discovery.” Lindstedt v. City of
Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000).
-3-
a motion to quash the depositions (docket no. 70).4 The motion was denied that same
day, and the court’s order was immediately mailed to the Kuypers (docket no. 73).
Plaintiff’s counsel waited at the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a court reporter
from 9:00 a.m. until noon on August 27, 2013, and had the court reporter note that the
Kuypers had not appeared as of 11:50 a.m. Declaration of Daniel Applegate (docket
no. 83-2), ¶ 9. The Kuypers did not contact Mr. Applegate at any time on August 27,
2013, concerning their absence. Id.
On September 5, 2013, the Kuypers filed a notice of appeal from the order
denying their motion to quash (docket no. 77). The United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit granted a motion to dismiss filed the United States and
summarily disposed of the appeal on September 30, 2013 (docket no. 84).
“Default judgment is appropriate where the party against whom the judgment
is sought has engaged in ‘willful violations of court rules, contumacious conduct, or
intentional delays.’” Forsythe v. Hales, 255 F.3d 487, 490 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996)).
“[T]he district court must consider all of the evidence and circumstances that tend to
provide a ‘complete understanding of the parties’ motivations’ ....” Int’l Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084, 1106 (8th Cir.
2004) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 344 (5th Cir.1998)).
The Kuypers’ intentional failure to appear for their depositions, and subsequent
filing an unauthorized appeal, are just the latest in a series of acts designed to delay
and obstruct this judicial proceeding, which has been pending since December 1,
2011. Some of those acts are recounted below:
4
The Kuypers also requested the court to prohibit any further discovery by the
United States and to dismiss the complaint.
-4-
•
On December 29, 2011, the Kuypers (together with a non-party,
Raymond Ehrman) answered and filed a third-party complaint against
James Daugherty, Brendan Johnson, Daniel Applegate, the United States
District Court for the District of South Dakota, the Treasury Department,
the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of the Inspector General, and
Congress (docket no. 9).5 In this rambling, 80-page pleading (including
attachments), the Kuypers alleged, among other things, that the thirdparty defendants were guilty of fraud and extortion because they were
attempting to collect a federal income tax that is enforceable only in the
District of Columbia. The Kuypers also moved for a change of venue to
Washington, D. C. After all judges from the District of South Dakota
recused themselves, the undersigned Senior United States District Judge
for the District of Nebraska was designated and assigned to preside over
this matter (docket no. 21), to which the Kuypers took exception (docket
no. 22). In a memorandum and order entered on February 29, 2012, I
struck the third-party complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(4) and,
except to the extent that the Kuypers had entered a general denial, struck
the answer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) for pleading insufficient
defenses and redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous matter;
in addition, I denied the Kuypers’ motion for change of venue and their
objections to the case reassignment (docket no. 24).
•
On March 6, 2012, the Kuypers, despite having already answered, filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint and reiterated their frivolous
contention that the federal income tax is not collectible outside of the
District of Columbia (docket no. 25). The motion to dismiss was denied
on April 2, 2012 (docket no. 29).
5
Mr. Daugherty is an IRS agent. Mr. Johnson is United States Attorney for the
District of South Dakota. Mr. Applegate is an Assistant United States Attorney who
appears as counsel of record for the United States in this matter.
-5-
•
On April 25, 2012, the Kuypers “concurred with” a motion to dismiss
filed by Raymond Ehrman as Trustee of Vision Unlimited (docket no.
35). It was once again claimed, among other things, that the federal
income tax extends only to the District of Columbia. This motion to
dismiss was denied on May 29, 2012, in a detailed memorandum opinion
(docket no. 40).6
•
On June 13, 2012, the Kuypers answered an amended complaint7 and
also counterclaimed for damages (docket no. 41). This pleading repeated
and expanded upon many of the allegations that were contained in the
Kuypers’ answer to the original complaint and that had been ordered
stricken; “counterclaims” were also alleged against Mr. Daugherty and
myself. After the United States filed a motion to strike and to dismiss
this pleading (docket no. 42), the Kuypers filed an amended answer and
counterclaim that included additional allegations but did not correct any
of the pleading defects of the previous filing (docket no. 43). The United
States then filed another motion to strike and to dismiss (docket no. 44).
•
On August 24, 2012, the Kuypers filed a motion to require the United
States to respond to the counterclaim (docket no. 45). On October 3,
2012, I dismissed the counterclaim and struck large portions of the
answer (docket no. 47).
•
On November 2, 2012, the Kuypers filed an appeal from the court’s
October 3rd order (docket no. 48). The appeal was dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction on December 17, 2012 (docket no. 54).
6
Subsequently, the trustee’s motion to dismiss was ordered stricken as an
improper pro se filing (docket no. 47).
7
The United States was granted leave to amend to substitute Mr. Ehrman as
trustee for a previously named defendant (docket no. 29).
-6-
By refusing to participate in discovery, the Kuypers have again demonstrated
their disdain for the United States and their contempt for this judicial proceeding.
They have provided no excuse for their behavior and have given no indication that
they have a meritorious defense. Considering all of the circumstances, and finding no
good reason to prolong the action further by imposing a lesser sanction, I conclude
that the Kuypers should be declared in default. Also, because all other defendants are
in default for failure to plead or otherwise defend the action, I conclude that a final
judgment can and should be entered.
“A default judgment entered by the court binds the party facing the default as
having admitted all of the well pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint.”
Angelo Iafrate Const., LLC v. Potashnick Const., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 721-22 (8th Cir.
2004). Because the amended complaint only sets forth the accrued tax liabilities of
Duane Kuyper and Kuyper Family Living Trust through December 1, 2011, the
United States should file an affidavit computing the amounts currently due. The
United States will also be directed to provide the court with a proposed final
judgment, which may be emailed to my chambers at kopf@ned.uscourts.gov.
I caution the defendants that this memorandum and order does not constitute
a judgment and cannot be appealed. Any appeal will need to wait until after a final
judgment has been entered by the court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (docket no. 83) is granted and, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), default is entered against
Defendants Duane L. Kuyper and Mary L. Kuyper in their individual
capacities.
-7-
2.
Plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit showing computations of accrued
tax liabilities and to provide the court with a proposed final judgment
which, upon approval and filing by the court, will conclude this action.
October 23, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
-8-
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?