United States of America v. Quam et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court (Dkt. # 31 ) and DENIES Hoppe's filing construed as a motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 26 ). Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (pg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
DARCY D QUAM, ERIC HOPPE,
§
THISTLE CREEK FARMS,
§
§
Defendants.
§
________________________________ §

No. 1:23-CV-43-DAE

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND (2) DENYING ERIC HOPPE’S MOTION
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”)
(Dkt. # 31) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell. The
Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing
the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Howell’s recommendation, and
DENIES Pro Se Defendant Eric Hoppe’s Plea to the Jurisdiction which the Court
construes as a motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 26).
BACKGROUND
The Court will recite the background facts of this matter as stated by
Judge Howell in his Report.1 On January 13, 2023, the United States of America
To the extent any objections are made to Judge Howell’s recitation of the facts,
the Court will note it in Hoppe’s objections discussed below.

1

initiated this lawsuit to enforce federal tax liens against Defendants Darcy D.
Quam, Eric Hoppe, Thistle Creek Farms, and Dessie Maria Andrews. 2 (Dkt. # 1 at
2.) Hoppe was named as a defendant in this lawsuit pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§ 7403(b) as a party who may claim an interest in the subject property because he
is married to Quam and lives at the subject property. (Id.) The Government
alleges that Quam has failed to pay her federal income taxes since 2006 despite
being required to do so. (Id. at 6.) Through this lawsuit, the Government requests
a judgment against Quam for $1,038,544.02 in income tax liabilities plus
statutory additions and interest. (Id. at 6–9.) The Government further seeks to
enforce a federal tax lien against the subject property, which includes two parcels
of land in Fredericksburg, Texas that Quam and Hoppe purported to transfer to
Thistle Creek Farm and Andrews. (Id. at 5–6, 7–9.)
Proceeding pro se, on April 18, 2024, Hoppe filed a plea to the
jurisdiction, which the undersigned construes as a motion to dismiss, asserting that
this forum is an improper venue and challenging this Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear this case. (Dkt. # 26.) The Government filed a response to
Hoppe’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 27), and Hoppe filed multiple replies. (Dkts.
## 28, 30.)

2

Andrews was dismissed from the lawsuit by consent of the parties. (Dkt. # 22.)
2

The case was referred to Judge Howell by the District Judge originally
assigned to this action. (Dkt. # 7.) On September 27, 2024, Judge Howell made
his Report on Hoppe’s motion. (Dkt. # 31.) On October 23, 2024, Hoppe made a
response/objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Dkt. # 32); on November 6,
2024, the Government made its response to Hoppe’s objections (Dkt. # 33). The
objections are addressed below.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Court must conduct a de novo review of any of the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.”). The objections must specifically identify those findings or
recommendations that the party wishes to have the district court consider.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). A district court need not consider
“[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,
834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Findings to which no specific objections are made do not require de
novo review; the Court need only determine whether the Recommendation is
3

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989).
DISCUSSION
In his Report, Judge Howell made the following findings: (1) this
Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit because it arises under
federal tax law and the United States is the plaintiff; and (2) the Western District of
Texas is the proper division for this suit because Hoppe and Quam live in this
judicial district, the federal tax liabilities the Government seeks to enforce arose in
this district, and the real property at issue is situated in this district. (Dkt. # 31.)
For these reasons, Judge Howell recommended the Court deny Hoppe’s motion.
Hoppe filed a response, which the Court will construe as objections to
the Report. (Dkt. # 32.) As an initial matter, Hoppe states that Judge Howell
“enumerates venue and jurisdiction, and although important, those are not the
major issues.” (Id. at 1.) Hoppe instead states that his wife, Quam, tendered to the
Court on February 27, 2023, $1.2 million to discharge the debt in this case. (Id. at
2.) Hoppe states that because that payment has not been returned, he assumed the
debt was discharged. (Id.)
There being no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions
regarding the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and that the Western District of
Texas is the proper division for this lawsuit, the Court finds no clear error in the
4

Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. Regarding Hoppe’s contention that the debt in this
case has been discharged, there is no record entry in this case reflecting that the
amounts owed have been paid. Should Hoppe or Quam choose to do so, they may
make such a payment in the amounts alleged to be owed at any time. In any case,
the Court will deny Hoppe’s pending motion.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions and
finding no errors, the Court will accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation
for the reasons stated therein. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court (Dkt. # 31) and DENIES
Hoppe’s filing construed as a motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 26).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: Austin, Texas, November 22, 2024.

______________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States District Judge

5