George Clinton v. Hendricks & Lewis Pllc , 555 F. App'x 737 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 24 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,                   No. 12-56663
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09476-ODW-PL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILL ADAMS, an individual, p.k.a.
    will.i.am, DBA Will I Am Music
    Publishing; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.,
    ALLAN LAW GROUP P.C.,
    Appellee,
    v.
    HENDRICKS & LEWIS PLLC,
    Creditor - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Seattle, Washington
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    This appeal concerns the priority of various claimants to settlement funds
    resulting from the resolution of a copyright infringement action. The district court,
    without explanation, granted an order distributing funds to the Internal Revenue
    Service, Jeffrey Thennisch, Hendricks & Lewis, and the Allan Law Group. We
    have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review questions of California
    law regarding lien priority de novo. See Paul Revere Ins. Grp. v. United States,
    
    500 F.3d 957
    , 960 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007).
    Hendricks & Lewis argues that Clinton “failed to substantiate his claimed
    entitlement to any portion of the settlement funds directly or indirectly through his
    alleged federal tax liability.” We agree.
    When a taxpayer fails to pay his federal taxes, after the IRS demands
    payment, the amount due becomes a ‘lien in favor of the United States
    upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal,
    belonging to such person.’ 
    26 U.S.C. § 6321
    . The lien attaches
    immediately to the taxpayer’s property, 
    26 U.S.C. § 6322
    , and
    becomes effective against certain third parties after the IRS has filed
    notice, 
    26 U.S.C. § 6323
    (f).
    Gorospe v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 
    451 F.3d 966
    , 967 (9th Cir. 2006)
    (emphasis added). Section 6323(a) specifically provides: “[t]he lien imposed by
    section 6321 shall not be valid as against any . . . judgment lien creditor until
    2
    notice . . . which meets the requirements of [§ 6323(f)] has been filed by the
    Secretary.”
    Hendricks & Lewis is a judgment lien creditor. The record does not include
    evidence that notice of Clinton’s federal tax debt was filed as required by §
    6323(f); Clinton only filed a faxed letter he received from the Internal Revenue
    Service indicating that he owed a debt. As such, the district judge erred by
    prioritizing Clinton’s tax debt ahead of Hendricks & Lewis’s judgment lien. We
    reverse the portion of the district court’s order allocating settlement funds to the
    Internal Revenue Service.
    The parties dispute how the remaining settlement funds should be
    distributed. Thennisch argues that the debt owed to him takes priority over
    Hendricks & Lewis’s lien because his work created the settlement proceeds.
    Hendricks & Lewis argues that Thennisch failed to prove the existence of an
    attorney lien in the first instance because he failed to file a copy of his fee
    agreement, and that in any case its first-in-time judgment lien takes priority over
    Thennisch’s claimed attorney lien per California Civil Code § 2897. The Allan
    Law Group did not participate in this appeal, but it argued in the district court that
    it had both contractual and charging liens on the settlement funds. Hendricks &
    3
    Lewis argues that its judgment lien takes priority over the Allan Law Group’s
    claimed liens.
    We cannot reconcile the district court’s allocation of settlement funds with
    the parties’ priority claims. Because the district court did not explain its allocation,
    we remand to the district court for further findings as to each claimant’s
    entitlement to a lien on the settlement funds, if any, and the relative priority of
    these liens. The panel retains jurisdiction over this appeal.
    REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED for further proceedings
    consistent with this disposition.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-56663

Citation Numbers: 555 F. App'x 737

Judges: Christen, Fisher, Gould

Filed Date: 2/24/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024