Search court records - party Cheng Zhang, page 5

No. 81 ORDER Granting 77 RAJMP, Inc.'s Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration; ...

Document RAJMP, INC. v. USA, 3:19-cv-00876, No. 81 (S.D.Cal. Jun. 20, 2019)

In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part ... .” S.D.

Further, RAJMP alleges that this Court committed clear error and created manifest injustice by allowing the United States to refile its motion to dismiss because the transferor court’s order became law of the case and allowing the United States to refile will expose the real risk that the civil action for an injunction will be dismissed.

The transferor court did not issue an order that evaluated and discussed the United States’ arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

RAJMP asserts that the transferor court’s order became the law of the case on the United States’ arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

RAJMP’s request for the Court to issue a stay for the deadline for the United States to file its motion to dismiss until after both its applications for reconsideration is moot.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Anthony Battaglia
Analyze Party
- Rajmp
- United States of America
Analyze Firm
- Ord & Norman
- United States Department of Justice

No. 79 ORDER (1) Granting 74 RAJMP, Inc.'s Motion to Exceed Page Limit for Its Ex Parte Application ...

Document RAJMP, INC. v. USA, 3:19-cv-00876, No. 79 (S.D.Cal. Jun. 17, 2019)

In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 19-cv-876 AJB (WVG)

In exercising its discretion, the Court finds good cause to GRANT RAJMP’s leave to exceed the page limit pursuant to CivL.R.

RAJMP also alleges that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) only applies where the defendant is a named or served officer or employee of the United States.

The only authority provided by RAJMP to support this argument is 14D Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3814, n. 31 (4th ed.).

Accordingly, RAJMP has provided no authority that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) only applies where the defendant is a named or served officer or employee of the United States.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Anthony Battaglia
Analyze Party
- Rajmp
- United States of America
Analyze Firm
- Ord & Norman
- United States Department of Justice

No. 145 ORDER Granting 143 RAJMP, Inc's Motion to Exceed Page Limit; Granting in Part and Denying in ...

Document United States of America v. RAJMP, Inc. et al, 3:17-cv-00515, No. 145 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2018)

This action is brought by the United States to: (1) reduce to judgment certain outstanding federal tax assessments against Defendant RAJMP; (2) collect RAJMP’s federal tax liabilities from property of Defendants the Estate of Robert A. Politte and Joan M. Politte as RAJMP’s past and/or present alter egos; (3) adjudicate that POFACO is Robert A. Politte and/or Joan M. Politte’s nominee; and (4) foreclose federal tax liens on several real properties at issue.

These grounds include: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could 17-cv-00515-AJB-WVG

In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part ... .” S.D.

In exercising its discretion, the Court finds good cause to GRANT RAJMP’s leave to exceed the page limit pursuant to CivL.R.

RAJMP does analyze one case that was decided after this Court issued its Order denying RAJMP’s motion for summary judgment.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Anthony Battaglia
Analyze Party
- Rajmp
- United States of America
Analyze Firm
- Ord & Norman
- United States Department of Justice

No. 146 AMENDED ORDER: (1) Denying 115 Joan M. Politte's Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Denying 116 ...

Document United States of America v. RAJMP, Inc. et al, 3:17-cv-00515, No. 146 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 13, 2018)

Motion for Summary JudgmentDenied

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

The Court declines to address the parties’ arguments regarding RAJMP’s possible defense that the OIC was accepted for processing by the IRS on or about July 25, 2006 as premature and inappropriate for a motion for summary judgment when the RAJMP has explicitly stated further discovery is needed.

This statutory provision imposing a lien “is broad and reveals on its face that Congress meant to reach every interest in property that a taxpayer might have.” United States v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 719–20, 105 S.Ct.

Therefore, based on the case law and applicable statutes, the Court finds that the assets held by an alter-ego may be reached by the United States to satisfy RAJMP’s obligations.

Thus, the Court finds that the Polittes are collaterally estopped from disputing their status as alter-egos of RAJMP and that assets held by an alter-ego may be reached by the creditor to satisfy the debtor’s obligations.

Cite Document

Analyze