Crisp

United States v. Crisp

Good Law
1999 WL 1249411·190 F.R.D. 546·53 Fed. R. Serv. 1084·84 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7106·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17967
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 1999No. CV-F-97-5044 OWW LJOCalifornia4,991 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Wanger, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DEFENDANT WANDA CRISP’S MOTION TO DISMISS; CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the Court on various motions and counter-motions of the parties for summary judgment. Plaintiff originally filed four complaints. The first was against Sequoia Property and Equipment Limited Partnership (filed 1/22/97); the second against Hyper-Jean Property and Equipment Limited Partnership (filed 1/30/98); the third against Wanda Jean Crisp, Hyper-Jean Property and Equipment Limited Partnership, Leader Federal Bank for Savings, Bankers Trust Company of California, and Mid-Valley Lenders (filed 10/14/98); and the fourth against Gilbert Mark Crisp, Rhonda Crisp, Sequoia Property and Equipment, and Washington Mutual Bank Inc. (filed 10/19/98). All four cases were consolidated for all purposes on August 6,1999.

The second amended complaint alleges two claims. (Doc. 61, No. 98-6188) First, Plaintiff requests the tax assessments against Gilbert Mark Crisp and Rhonda Jean Crisp from 1988 and 1989 be reduced to judgment. *549 (Doc. 61, No. 98-6188 at 3-4) Second, Plaintiff seeks to set aside the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.