United States v. Sarbaev
- Edward Davila
- 5:23-cv-03451
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In United States v. Sarbaev, Judge Westmore ordered Sarbaev to show cause why Internal Revenue Service summonses should not be enforced.
Miroslav G. Sarbaev, the United States, and the Internal Revenue Service summons-enforcement proceeding involving documents and testimony from Sarbaev.
What happened
United States v. Sarbaev concerns the United States’ petition to enforce Internal Revenue Service summonses against Miroslav G. Sarbaev, individually and in his official capacity as president of Your Net Works, Inc.
The court ordered Sarbaev to appear on November 16, 2023, and explain why he should not be required to provide the documents and testimony identified in the summonses. The order also set deadlines for serving the order, filing a written response, and filing the government’s reply and proposed order.
Judge Westmore issued an order to show cause as modified. The order set procedures for responding to the petition; it did not state a final ruling enforcing or declining to enforce the summonses.
The detailed version
- United States v. Sarbaev · No. 5:23-cv-03451
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 14, 2023
Background
The United States filed a petition seeking enforcement of Internal Revenue Service summonses served on Miroslav G. Sarbaev. The caption identifies Sarbaev as the respondent in both his individual capacity and his official capacity as president of Your Net Works, Inc.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, as modified. It directed Sarbaev to appear on November 16, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Oakland and explain why he should not be compelled to appear and provide the documents and testimony required by the summonses described in the petition.
The order required service of the order to show cause and related materials by September 8,
- It allowed Sarbaev to file and serve a written response, supported by an affidavit or declaration, and any motions by September 29,
- The United States could file and serve a reply, and it was ordered to file a proposed order containing all relief sought by October 13,
- The court stated that uncontested allegations in the petition would be considered admitted and that issues would be considered at the return date only if raised by a motion or responsive pleading and supported as required.
Disposition
This was a procedural order directing Sarbaev to respond to the petition and show cause. The opinion does not state that the summonses were ultimately enforced or that the petition was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.