Baxter et al v. United States of America, et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02138

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{47}} Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Interlocutory Order.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 JOSEPH GARY BAXTER AND PATRICIA 6 MARY BAXTER, Case No. 15-cv-02138-YGR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 8 v. INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 47 10 Defendants. 11 The Baxters brought this action seeking to challenge defendants' use of the National 12 Research Program ("NRP") to audit plaintiffs as an invalid and unconstitutional exercise of the Northern District of California United States District Court 13 IRS's authority. The Court granted the government's motion to dismiss the First Amended 14 Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 43.) 15 The Baxters now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order. (Dkt. No. 47 ("Mtn.").) The Court having carefully considered the papers submitted, the 16 pleadings in this action, and for the reasons set forth below, DENIES the Baxters' motion. 17 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 18 The facts at issue in this case are well-known to the parties and were summarized 19 previously by the Court in its prior orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 26. and 43.) The Baxters now move for 20 reconsideration of the order granting motion to dismiss on two grounds, namely: (1) a manifest 21 failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to 22 the Court before such interlocutory order, and (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change 23 of law occurring after the time of such order. 24 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 25 "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 26 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 27 an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 28 (9th Cir.1993). Local Rule 7–9(b) requires that a party seeking leave to file a motion for 1 reconsideration show reasonable diligence in making the motion and one of the following: 2 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 3 interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for 4 reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or 5 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time 6 of such order; or 7 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 8 9 Pursuant to Local Rule 7–9(c), "[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may 10 repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to 11 the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered." Reconsideration of a prior ruling is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly." Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of 12 Northern District of California United States District Court Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 The Baxters contend that the Court erred in failing to consider material facts and 15 dispositive legal arguments. However, their arguments are unpersuasive. The motion is based 16 entirely on arguments that either were or could have been presented to the Court in support of their 17 opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. The Baxters have failed to satisfy their burden. 18 Furthermore, the Baxters contend that new facts have arisen warranting leave to file a 19 motion for reconsideration. Specifically, plaintiffs received a notice of Income Tax Examination 20 Changes from the IRS assessing over $1 million in taxes, penalties for fraud, and interest. In 21 addition, they assert that the IRS advised Mr. Baxter that the 2012 and 2013 audits were deemed 22 research audits after the Baxters asserted their constitutional rights. The receipt of this 23 information cannot alter the Court's decision that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 24 Reconsideration is therefore inappropriate on these grounds as well.1 25 // 26 27 1 As the Court previously noted, the Baxters' remedies include petitioning the Tax Court 28 for a redetermination of the deficiency and suing for a refund in the Court of Federal Claims. (Dkt. No. 43 at 8:7-12.) 2 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based upon the foregoing, the Baxters' motion is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 3 Number 47. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 12, 2016 5 ______________________________________ 6 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3