Guancione v. Internal Revenue Service ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ROSALIE GUANCIONE, Case No. 22-cv-02619-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 9 v. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 10 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, [Re: ECF Nos. 48, 49, 55, 59, 65] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff has filed five motions for “declaratory judgment” that are currently pending. ECF 14 Nos. 48, 49, 55, 59, 65. The first seeks a declaratory judgment “that Plaintiff complied with 15 requirement to serve an administrative claim on Defendant by deadline established by this US [sic] 16 District Court.” ECF No. 48. The second seeks a declaratory judgment “that Defendant filed 17 erroneous notice of federal tax liens against the real property of a legal owner and holder of a note 18 in due course, aka mortgagor, at all times, for the alleged tax debt of another.” ECF No. 49. The 19 third seeks a declaratory judgment “that Plaintiff’s standing is that of a sovereign without the 20 United States, and above the standing of the foreign trust domestic to Puerto Rico that is the 21 Defendant Internal Revenue Service.” ECF No. 55. The fourth seeks a declaratory judgment “that 22 Defendant filed erroneous lis pendens against the real property of a legal owner and holder of a 23 note in due course, aka mortgagor, at all times, for the alleged tax debt of another, that is void 24 from date of recording.” ECF No. 59. The fifth, which is titled a “first amended motion for 25 declaratory judgment,” seeks a declaratory judgment “that Plaintiff complied with requirement to 26 serve an administrative claim on Defendant.” ECF No. 65. 27 Defendant has opposed the first four motions. ECF Nos. 54 (opposing ECF Nos. 48, 49), 1 motion. See ECF No. 65. Defendant argues that these motions are procedurally improper. See 2 ECF Nos. 54, 62. The Court agrees. 3 “[A] party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must bring 4 an action for a declaratory judgment.” Kam-Ko-Bio-Pharm Trading Co. Ltd.-Australasia v. 5 || Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Jnt’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. 6 E. Conference of Teamsters, 160 F.R.D. 452, 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). The only way a motion for 7 declaratory relief “can be construed as being consistent with the Federal Rules is to construe it as a 8 || motion for summary judgment on an action for a declaratory judgment.” Jd. (quoting □□□□□ Bhd. of 9 Teamsters, 160 F.R.D. at 456). This is not an action for a declaratory judgment. See ECF No. 29 10 || (‘TAC’). Plaintiff's motion is denied as inconsistent with the Federal Rules. Kam-Ko-Bio-Pharm 11 Trading Co. Ltd.-Australasia, 560 F.3d at 943. 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motions for declaratory judgment are DENIED. ECF 13 || Nos. 48, 49, 55, 59, 65. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: July 7, 2023 LaWInfnchan ETH LABSON FREEMAN Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28