Stickney

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Sandra Stickney (Stickney) challenges the district court’s ruling that a transmutation of residential property interests from community property to tenancies in common constituted a fraudulent transfer.

Although it appears that the district court’s ruling on the merits was supported by the record, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Stickney failed to establish that “[her] action falls within an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity ...” Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted).

1. The district court lacked jurisdiction over Stickney’s quiet title action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2410 . See Dunn & Black, 492 F.3d at 1092 n. 9 (“[A] plaintiff cannot seek relief for monies or property already in the hands of the IRS in a § 2410 quiet title action.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. The district court also lacked jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7433 , which applies only to the direct taxpayer and not to *617 third parties such as Stickney. See Allied/Royal Parking L.P. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1999).

3. For the same reason, 26 U.S.C. §…