Free Joint Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 5:07-cv-03141-JF

Document 36

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SCSBN 9990) United States Attorney THOMAS MOORE (ASBN 4305-O78T) Assistant United States Attorney Acting Chief, Tax Division DAVID L. DENIER (CSBN 95024) Assistant United States Attorney 9th Floor Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6888 Fax: (415) 436-6748 Attorneys for United States of America

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 VICKI R. SEIDEL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Case Management Statement 18 and Proposed Order and request the Court to adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. 19 DESCRIPTION OF CASE 20 1. A brief description of the events underlying the action: 21 This is a wrongful levy brought by plaintiff pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7426. Plaintiff 22 sought a preliminary injunction ordering the Internal Revenue Service to return $321.30 allegedly 23 seized from Washington Mutual Bank, account no. 0980711488 on or about May 29, 2007, 24 ordering the Internal Revenue Service to return any monies seized pursuant to a levy of plaintiff's 25 salary and restraining the Internal Revenue Service from further levies on plaintiff's salary. 26 Plaintiff's motion for preliminary was denied on July 16, 2007. On July 25, 2007, plaintiff filed 27 a notice of appeal. Pursuant to plaintiff/appellant's motion for voluntary dismissal, the appeal 28 was dismissed on September 20, 2007.
Joint CM S & Proposed Order No. C-07-03141-JF 1

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. C-07-03141-JF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2007 TIME: 10:30 A.M.

Case 5:07-cv-03141-JF

Document 36

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff seeks the return of monies she alleges were a wrongfully levied and seized by the IRS to pay assessments made against her husband, Thomas E. Seidel. She seeks a permanent injunction against the IRS from further levies. She also seeks damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7426(h) in the amount of $1,000,000. 2. The principal factual issues which the parties dispute: (1) Whether the IRS wrongfully levied property of the plaintiff. See 26 U.S.C. § 7426. (2) Whether Revenue Officer Joe Smith recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregarded any provision of the Internal Revenue Code in taking the collection action at issue. See 26 U.S.C. § 7426(h). (3) If Revenue Officer Joe Smith recklessly or intentionally, or by reason of negligence, disregarded any provision of the Internal Revenue Code in taking the collection action at issue, what damages if any did plaintiff suffer. See 26 U.S.C. § 7426(h). 3. The principal legal issue[s] which the parties dispute: None. 4. The other factual issues [e.g. service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction or venue] which remain unresolved for the reason stated below and how the parties propose to resolve those issues: None. 5. The parties which have not been served and the reasons: None. 6. The additional parties which the below-specified parties intend to join and the intended time frame for such joinder? None. 7. The following parties consent to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge for [court or jury] trial: Defendant United States declines to consent to assignment of this case to a United States Magistrate Judge because the case has been thoroughly briefed in response to the motion for preliminary injunction.
Joint CM S & Proposed Order No. C-07-03141-JF

2

Case 5:07-cv-03141-JF

Document 36

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 3 of 4

1 2 3 4 ___ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _X_ ___ ___

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 8. [Please indicate the appropriate response(s).] The case was automatically assigned to Nonbinding Arbitration at filing and will be ready or the hearing by (date) _______________. The parties have filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process (specify process): ______________. The parties filed a Notice of Need ro ADR Phone Conference and the hone conference was held on or is scheduled for ______________. The parties have not filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting an ADR process and the ADR process that the parties jointly request [or a party separately requests] is .

9. Please indicate any other information regarding ADR process or deadline: The government respectfully submits that this case may be subject to disposition by summary judgment motion. DISCLOSURES 10. The parties certify that they have made the following disclosures [list disclosures of persons, documents, damage computation and insurance agreements]: The relevant documents have been presented to the plaintiff previously in response to her motion for preliminary injunction.. The government will provide any other relevant documents that the plaintiff requires. DISCOVERY 11. The parties agree to the following discovery plan [Describe the plan e.g., any limitation on the number, duration or subject matter for various kinds of discovery; discovery from experts; deadlines for completing discovery]: At this time, the United States does not anticipate any formal discovery. TRIAL SCHEDULE 12. The parties request a trial date as follows: The government suggests that the court set a schedule for a summary judgment motion. If summary judgment is not granted, the factual issues should be narrowed by the motion. ///
Joint CM S & Proposed Order No. C-07-03141-JF

3

Case 5:07-cv-03141-JF

Document 36

Filed 11/21/2007

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: See response to item 12 above. RELATED CASES Related cases are: United States v. Thomas E. Seidel, et al., No. CR 06-00539 JF USDC ND Cal.; United States v. Thomas E. Seidel, No. C 07-04128-RMW USDC ND Cal.; and Four Rivers Investment, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 06-00598 US Cl Ct. SCOTT N. SCHOOLS United States Attorney Dated: November 21, 2007 /s/ David L. Denier DAVID L. DENIER Assistant United States Attorney Tax Division Attorneys for United States of America

10 11 12 13 14 Dated: November 21 , 2007 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Joint CM S & Proposed Order No. C-07-03141-JF

/s/ Robert Alan Jones ROBERT ALAN JONES Attorney for Vicki R. Seidel CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Count as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this order. In addition the Court orders:

Dated:

__________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4