IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 6, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PETITIONER,
WILLIAM J. HATCHER, DBA WILLIAM J. HATCHER ATTORNEY AT LAW RESPONDENT .
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER TO CONTINUE SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Upon the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the show cause hearing currently set for February 9, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. in the above-captioned case is continued until March 9, 2009 at 10:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
1. Respondent, WILLIAM J. HATCHER ("Respondent") appear before United States District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez in that Judge's Courtroom in the United States District Court, Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego, California on March 9, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., to show cause why he should not be compelled to obey the Internal Revenue Service summonses served upon him.
2. If Respondent has any defense to present or an opposition to the Petition, such defense or opposition shall be made in writing and filed with the Clerk and copies served on counsel for the United States at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date set for the show cause hearing. The United States may file a reply memorandum to any opposition at least five (5) court days prior to the date set for the show cause hearing.
3. At the show cause hearing, the Court will consider all issues raised by the Respondent. Only those issues brought into controversy by the responsive pleadings and supported by affidavit will be considered. Any uncontested allegation in the Petition will be considered admitted.
4. Respondent may notify the Court, in a writing filed with the Clerk and served on counsel for the United States at least fourteen (14) days prior to the date set for the show cause hearing, that Respondent has no objection to enforcement of the summons. Respondent's appearance at the hearing will then be excused.
Respondent is hereby notified that a failure to comply with this Order may subject him to sanctions for contempt of court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.