Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Martinez, 2:19-cv-1986-GMN-DJA. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20200204b25 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES' MOTION TO CONTINUE FED. R. Civ. P. 26(f) CONFERENCE AND RELATED EVENTS (First request) DANIEL J. ALBREGTS , Magistrate Judge . The United States of America hereby moves to continue the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference deadline. Under LR 26-1, the plaintiff must initiate a Rule 26(f) conference within 30 days after the first defendant appears. The first defendant appeared on January 8, 2020 (ECF No. 4), so the time for the conference would run on February 7, 2020. However, to
More

UNITED STATES' MOTION TO CONTINUE FED. R. Civ. P. 26(f) CONFERENCE AND RELATED EVENTS

(First request)

The United States of America hereby moves to continue the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference deadline. Under LR 26-1, the plaintiff must initiate a Rule 26(f) conference within 30 days after the first defendant appears. The first defendant appeared on January 8, 2020 (ECF No. 4), so the time for the conference would run on February 7, 2020. However, to date only one defendant has answered, and two defendants have not yet been served (and the time for doing so has not expired). The case centers on the conduct of defendants Jeffrey and Dolores Martinez, who have been served but have not appeared. The United States thus requests that the Rule 26(f) conference deadline be extended to March 9, 2020 (30 days plus one additional day, as 30 days falls on a Sunday), or, if Mr. or Ms. Martinez appears in the next thirty days, for the conference deadline to be extended for 30 days from the date of the appearance.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Background

This is a federal tax case. The United States seeks judgment against taxpayers Jeffrey and Dolores Martinez, and against two businesses they controlled, for various federal taxes. The United States also seeks to foreclose its tax liens against certain real property to help satisfy the judgment. The United States also named as defendants other parties that might assert a lien or other claim against the property. See 26 U.S.C. § 7403(b), Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax. That way, those parties' claims (if any) could be adjudicated if and when the Court determined that the property should be foreclosed. It is common in such cases for the United States to reach stipulations with other claimants as to lien priority, to the extent they do not disclaim any interest.

The United States submits that it is premature to conduct the Rule 26(f) conference at this date. Neither of the Martinezes have appeared to date. The United States served them, individually and as representatives of their businesses, on December 27, 2019. Their time to respond to the complaint thus expired on January 17, 2019 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), and the United States anticipates seeking an entry of default and default judgment against them if they do not file an answer or other response. (In an abundance of caution, the United States is mailing them a copy of this motion.)

To date only one of the potential lienholders, the Rhodes Ranch Association, has answered the complaint. (ECF No. 4). Another, Fidelity National Title, has disclaimed any interest. (See ECF No. 7). The United States has been in touch with counsel for defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and Chase Bank National Association (together, the "Chase defendants"), and the parties are conferring as to whether they can reach a stipulation as to lien priority between them without discovery or further litigation. The Chase defendants have not yet answered.1 Defendant Republic Silver State Inc. has been served but has not yet appeared, and has not contacted the United States.

Finally, the United States has not yet served two of the potential claimants, Nevada Mortgagee Assistance Company and the Cooper Castle Law firm. The time to serve them has not yet expired, although, in an abundance of caution, the United States is filing a separate motion to extend the time for service. However, initial research and discussions with counsel for the Chase defendants suggests that these two entities are no longer in business, and that the Chase defendants may be their successors in interest or the real parties in interest.

Request for Relief

Under the circumstances, the United States respectfully submits that it is premature to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference. The United States therefore requests that the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference be continued for 30 days from the current due date (plus one day, as 30 days falls on a Sunday), i.e., extended to March 9, 2020. If Mr. or Ms. Martinez appears in the next thirty days (either individually or on behalf of their businesses), the United States requests that the deadline for the Rule 26(f) conference be set to 30 days from the date of the appearance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The United States has conferred with counsel for Rhodes Ranch Association and the Chase defendants. Neither of them oppose this motion.
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