USA v. Sosa et al
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 30 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Case 2:16-cv-352-DAK is hereby consolidated with 2:13-cv-999-RJS-PMW. All subsequent docketing shall occur in United States v. Sosa, case no. 2:13-cv-00999. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 10/4/2016. (jds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MEMORDANUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case 2:13-cv-0999-RJS-PMW
SERGIO FERNANDO SOSA and
SERGIO CENTRO LATINO,
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Defendants.
District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is a motion to consolidate the abovecaptioned action (the “999 Action”) with United States v. David H. Sosa, et al., 2:16-cv-00352DAK (the “352 Action”).
BACKGROUND
999 Action
In the above-captioned action, the United States alleges that defendant Sergio Fernando
Sosa and his company, Sergio Centro Latino (“SCL”) engaged in the false or fraudulent
preparation of federal income tax returns over several years. The alleged misconduct includes
using false filing status elections, falsely claiming dependency exemptions, falsely claiming or
inflating claims related to the earned income tax credit (“EITC”), falsely claiming or inflating
claims related to the Additional Child Tax Credit (“ACTC”), falsely including expenses and
1
Docket no. 24.
deductions related to fictitious business entities, and failing to calculate or incorrectly calculating
self-employment tax liabilities.
The United States seeks a permanent injunction against Sergio Fernando Sosa and SCL
precluding their involvement in the preparation of tax returns.
352 Action
In the 352 Action, the United States alleges that the same company, SCL, and its
employees engaged in the false or fraudulent preparation of federal income tax returns. Sergio
Fernando Sosa is not named as an individual defendant in this action; however, he would be
involved in the 352 Action as the owner of SCL and as the employer of the named individual
defendants. In addition, some of the individual defendants in the 352 Action are also closely
related to Sergio Fernando Sosa.
The 352 Action involves allegations that the defendants engaged in conduct and a scheme
nearly identical to those alleged in the 999 Action.2 The United States again seeks a permanent
injunction precluding defendants’ involvement in the preparation of tax returns.
Although the 999 Action is the older case, there is no trial date set, and the action is still
in the relatively early stages procedurally. The 352 Action has a trial date in December 2017.3
DISCUSSION
Consolidation is governed by rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
DUCivR 42-1. Local rule 42-1 states:
Any party may file a motion and proposed order to consolidate two or more cases
before a single judge if the party believes that such cases or matters:
2
3
See, e.g., docket no. 2 at ¶¶ 18-24; United States v. David H. Sosa, et al., 2:16-cv-00352, docket no. 2 at ¶¶ 20-26.
United States v. David H. Sosa, et al., 2:16-cv-00352, docket no. 19.
2
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
arise from substantially the same transaction or event;
involve substantially the same parties or property;
involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright;
call for determination of substantially the same questions of law; or
for any other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor or
unnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges.
The court may sua sponte enter an order of consolidation.
Any motion pursuant to this rule shall be filed in the lower-numbered case, and a
notice of the motion shall be filed in all other cases which are sought to be
consolidated. The motion shall be decided by the judge assigned the lowernumbered case. If the motion is granted, the case will be consolidated into the
case with the lowest number.
DUCivR 42-1.
Here, all of the relevant factors support consolidation.
Both actions “arise from
substantially the same transaction or event” and “involve substantially the same parties or
property.” DUCivR 42-1. Both actions involve allegations that SCL and its employees engaged
in misconduct in preparing federal income tax returns. SCL is a defendant in both cases, and the
individual defendants were all employees of SCL. Both actions involve the same types of legal
issues, including allegations of false and deceptive conduct in preparing tax returns and
violations of the Internal Revenue Code. Both actions also seek permanent injunctions against
defendants to preclude similar conduct. Given the substantial degree of overlap between the
facts, issues, parties, and witnesses, having different judges would necessarily lead to
“substantial duplication of labor” and “unnecessary court costs.” Id.
For the foregoing reason, the motion to consolidate is GRANTED.4 Pursuant to Rule 42
and DUCivR 42-1, Case 352 is hereby consolidated with Case 999. All subsequent docketing
4
Docket no. 30.
3
shall occur in United States v. Sosa, case no. 2:13-cv-00999.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 4th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________________
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
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?