United States v. Steburg
- James Donato
- 3:25-cv-02092
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In United States v. Steburg, Judge Westmore ordered Anita L. Steburg to show cause why Internal Revenue Service summonses should be enforced.
Anita L. Steburg and the United States, which seeks enforcement of Internal Revenue Service summonses.
What happened
United States v. Steburg concerns the United States’ petition seeking enforcement of Internal Revenue Service summonses served on Anita L. Steburg. The court ordered her to explain why she should not be required to provide the documents and testimony identified in the summonses.
The order requires Steburg to appear on June 5, 2025, and permits her to file a written response or motion by May 1. The United States may reply by May 15, and it must file a proposed order by that date.
Judge Andis A. Westmore issued an order to show cause, but the order did not decide whether the summonses should ultimately be enforced.
The detailed version
- United States v. Steburg · No. 3:25-cv-02092
- James Donato
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
The United States filed a petition seeking enforcement of Internal Revenue Service summonses served on Anita L. Steburg. The opinion states that good cause was shown for issuing an order requiring Steburg to respond.
What the Court Ordered
The court ordered Steburg to appear on June 5, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in the United States District Court in Oakland, California. At that hearing, she must show cause—give any reason—why she should not be compelled to appear and provide the documents and testimony required by the summonses, as described in the petition.
The United States must serve Steburg with the order and a copy of the petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 by April 10, 2025. Steburg may file and serve a written response, supported by an affidavit or declaration, and any motion she wishes to make by May 1, 2025. The United States may file a reply by May 15, 2025, and must file a proposed order covering the relief requested in the petition by that date.
Effect of the Order
The order states that supported allegations raised by motion or responsive pleadings will be considered and warns that uncontested allegations in the petition will be treated as admitted. The court did not finally decide whether the Internal Revenue Service summonses should be enforced; it set the procedure for addressing that question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.