Opinion
No. 2:05-CV-02176-MCE-CMK.
May 6, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On July 5, 2007, this Court entered summary judgment in favor of the United States of America in this action to foreclose on federal tax liens. Defendants Michael Carey and Leona Carey ("the Careys") did not oppose that motion. The United States then brought a motion to enforce that judgment. The Careys did not oppose that motion. Approximately three weeks later, the Careys filed their notice of appeal. This Court entered an Order enforcing the judgment against the Careys. The Careys now move for clarification of that Order. The Careys have not submitted points and authorities in support of their motion.
The Careys' papers assert two grounds for clarification. First, the Careys wish the Court to clarify "the jurisdictional basis for said order." In the Notice of Motion, it appears that the Careys intended argument is that the Notice of Appeal divested this Court of all jurisdiction over this case. However, a District Court has authority to enforce its judgments so long as the appellate court has not stayed or superseded said judgment. See 20 Moore's Federal Practice § 303.32[2][c] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.). The Careys have not shown that the Ninth Circuit has stayed or superseded any of this Court's prior Orders. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to enforce its Order granting summary judgment.
Second, the Careys request this Court clarify "the evidentiary basis for overruling the final judgment of the Bankruptcy Court." The Careys do not provide this Court with any further basis for this assertion. Additionally, the Careys never opposed the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment, nor did they oppose the Motion to Enforce the Judgment on these grounds. As stated in this Court's order granting summary judgment, this Court found that the tax penalties were secured by federal tax liens prior to the bankruptcy proceedings and therefore were not discharged. Mem. Order 12, July 5, 2007. This Court is not aware of any decision from the Bankruptcy Court which it has overruled.
Because the Careys' motion for clarification is completely lacking in merit or support, it is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.