Broman v. Martin ( 2024 )

1 PUHniItLeLd ISPt aAte. sT AAtLtoBrEneRyT 2 RACHEL R. DAVIDSON Assistant United States Attorney 3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 4 E-mail: Rachel.Davidson@usdoj.gov Telephone: (916) 554-2700 5 Attorneys for the Internal 6 Revenue Service and the United States 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RAYMOND BROMAN, CASE NO. 2:23−CV−01936−MCE−AC 11 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO Plaintiff, DISMISS 12 v. 13 JENNY L. MARTIN, also known as JENNY 14 MARTIN; RICHARD MARTIN; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; STATE OF 15 CALIOFORNIA, EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LIEN 16 GROUP; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 The Court having considered Defendants Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and California 20 Employment Development Department’s (“EDD”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21 No. 12), and Plaintiff Raymond Broman’s (“Plaintiff”) Opposition thereto, the Court hereby Orders the 22 following: 23 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is 24 granted. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is not based on any recognized legal theory. Although 25 not artfully pled, Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief seeks to reduce the “scope and amounts” of the 26 EDD and IRS’ tax liens to a value before the subject property was sold by the Martins to Plaintiff. The 27 Ninth Circuit in Han v. United States, 944 F.2d 526 (9th Cir. 1991) expressly rejected this argument, 28 holding that a tax lien is unabated regardless of a sale or non-disclosure of the tax lien by the taxpayer 1 || during the sale process. Id. at 528-29. Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief is thus 2 || dismissed with leave to amend. 3 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action for Marshalling is 4 || also granted. The Ninth Circuit prohibits a marshalling claim against the government because 5 |} marshalling cannot be invoked to prevent the government from enforcing valid tax liens against any 6 || property. See In re Ackerman, 424 F.2d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 1970). Therefore, Plaintiff's marshalling 7 || claim fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff's marshalling claim is also deficient because he has not alleged 8 || that he is a junior lienholder or that there are “two funds” belonging to the same debtor (.e., the 9 || Martins), as required by law. Myer v. United States, 375 U.S. 233, 236-37 (1963). Plaintiff’'s Seventh 10 |} Cause of Action for Marshalling is dismissed with leave to amend. 11 3. Plaintiffs request to file two new causes of action is denied. Plaintiff has failed to 12 || comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and this Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF 2) in 13 || seeking leave to amend. Absent the Court granting a properly noticed motion for leave to amend, 14 || Plaintiff is permitted only to amend the facts pertinent to the dismissed Sixth and Seventh Causes of 15 |} Action that are dismissed by virtue of this Order. Should Plaintiff attempt to amend the declaratory 16 || relief and marshalling causes of action, any amended complaint must be filed not later than twenty (20) 17 || days following the date this Order is electronically filed. If no amended complaint is timely filed, these 18 || causes of action will be deemed DISMISSED with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 13, 2024 Eo 21 { late rf LEK. » SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS