Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PATEL, 1:11-cv-01255-OWW-MJS. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120213870 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENFORCING I.R.S. SUMMONS ANTHONY ISHII, Chief District Judge. The United States here petitions for enforcement of an I.R.S. summons issued by investigating Revenue Officer Lisa Cumiford. The matter was placed before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng under 28 U.S.C. 636 et seq. and Local Rule 73-302. On August 1, 2011, Judge Seng issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering the respondent, Hetendra M. Patel, as Agent
More

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ENFORCING I.R.S. SUMMONS

ANTHONY ISHII, Chief District Judge.

The United States here petitions for enforcement of an I.R.S. summons issued by investigating Revenue Officer Lisa Cumiford. The matter was placed before United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng under 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq. and Local Rule 73-302. On August 1, 2011, Judge Seng issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering the respondent, Hetendra M. Patel, as Agent for Service for Red Zone, Inc., to show cause why the I.R.S. summons issued to him on December 14, 2010, should not be enforced. The Petition, Points and Authorities, and Order to Show Cause were served upon the respondent in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Respondent did not file an opposition to enforcement under paragraph on page 3 of the Order to Show Cause.

At the show-cause hearing held before Judge Seng on September 23, 2011, respondent appeared and agreed to comply with the summons. On October 11, 2011, Judge Seng filed Findings and Recommendations, finding that the requirements for summons enforcement had been satisfied and recommending that the summons be enforced. Neither side filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.

I have reviewed the entire record de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304. I am satisfied that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis, and that the requested and unopposed summons enforcement should be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations Re: I.R.S. Summons Enforcement, filed October 11, 2011, are ADOPTED IN FULL.

2. The I.R.S. summons issued to respondent, Hetendra M. Patel, Agent for Service for Red Zone, Inc., is ENFORCED.

3. Respondent, Hetendra M. Patel, is ORDERED to appear at the I.R.S. offices at 2525 Capitol Street, Suite 206, Fresno, California, 93721, before Revenue Officer Lisa Cumiford, or her designated representative, within 21 days of the issuance of this order, or at an alternate time and date to be set by Revenue Officer Cumiford, then and there to be sworn, to give testimony, and to produce for examining and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the summons, the examination to continue from day to day until completed.

4. The Clerk shall serve this and future orders by mail to Mr. Hetendra M. Patel, Agent for Service for Red Zone, Inc., 2217 E. Lester Ave., Fresno, California, 93720.

5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce its order.

6. The United States of America shall notify the Court regarding Respondent's compliance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer