Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that Paul Stanco, Jose and Maria Linares, and Henry and Bozena Strodka all failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by failing to file administrative appeals with the IRS for their FOIA requests concerning the requirements to file IRS Forms 8938 and 5471. The agency provided some records but withheld others. However, instead of appealing the denials administratively, they filed a consolidated complaint against the IRS. In court, the IRS argued that three appellate decisions �" Oglesby v. Dept of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), Taylor v. Appleton. 30 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1994), and McDonnell v. United States, 4 F.3d 1227 (3rd Cir. 1993) �" all held that requesters were required to file administrative appeals if the agency responded to the requests before the requesters filed suit. Agreeing with the cited precedents, the court noted that "permitting Plaintiffs to bypass administrative remedies in these circumstances would prevent Defendant from exercising its discretion and expertise on the matter, making a factual record to support its decision, and potentially correcting mistakes made at lower levels that may remove the need for judicial review altogether." The plaintiffs also argued that Toesing v. Dept of Justice, 890 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2012), a case in which Toesing argued that her subsequent request for the same records for which she had failed to file an administrative appeal originally resurrected her appeals rights pertaining to the original request, applied here. Toesing actually held that she was not entitled to such relief. Here, the court noted that "because plaintiffs raised this argument for the first time in a supplemental brief, Defendant was not given a full opportunity to respond." The court added that "regardless, the Complaint does not include any allegations about the January 2019 requests or appeals, as they relate to exhaustion of the April 2017 requests. . .but Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint if they wish the Court to consider those allegations in the future."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has rejected the IRS's claim that Paul Stanco, Jose Linares, and Henry Strodka failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when instead of filing administrative appeals of their original requests, they administratively appealed later duplicative requests that, they argued, included the records encompassed in their original requests. The agency claim was based on Toensing v. Dept of Justice, 890 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2012), a D.C. Circuit district court decision in which the court held that "despite frustration of the particular administrative scheme, a duplicate request can constructively exhaust a previous, unexhausted request so long as the purposes of exhaustion have been met. The court here expresses doubts that Toensing actually supported the agency's position." He observed that "to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court would need to accept what seems to be Defendant's sweeping argument that a requester can never constructively exhaust a FOIA request by filing and fully exhausting a duplicate request. Defendant fails to provide authority to support this broad proposition. As discussed, Toensing seems to suggest the opposite: That a duplicate request can constructively exhaust previously exhausted issues so long as the purposes of exhaustion. . .have been met."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2018-04-10	1	COMPLAINT against Internal Revenue Service by Henry M. Strodka, Paul Stanco, Maria V. Linares, Jose M Linares, Bozena M. Strodka. Attorney Cohan, William A. added. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cohan, William) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
2018-04-10		PAYMENT for Civil Case filing fee in the amount of $ 400, receipt number 0972-7600908. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
2018-04-11	2	SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Internal Revenue Service* with answer to complaint due within *30* days. Attorney *William Allan Cohan* *William A. Cohan, P.C.* *P.O. Box 3448* *Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067*. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
2018-04-11	3	CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP) (Benson, A.) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
2018-04-23	4	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: Internal Revenue Service served on 4/17/2018. (Cohan, William) Modified on 4/24/2018 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 04/23/2018)
2018-05-16	5	MOTION to DISMISS as to Counts 1-9; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT as to Count 10. Motion Hearing set for 6/28/2018 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley.), by Internal Revenue Service. Attorney Ho, Stephen Shuching added. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Cheri A. Rossi, # 3 Exhibits A-L, # 4 Declaration of Patricia I. Perez, # 5 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 5/17/2018 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 05/16/2018)
2018-06-14	6	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extending Time to Respond to Defendant's Motions and Continuing Hearing re 5 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment by Internal Revenue Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 6/18/2018 (Fabillaran, J). (Entered: 06/14/2018)
2018-06-15	7	STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/14/2018 ORDERING that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Counts 110 of the Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 10 is EXTENDED to 7/5/2018 and the hearing on Defendants motions is hereby CONTINUED to 7/26/2018. (Hunt, G) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
2018-07-05	8	RESPONSE by Jose M. Linares, Maria V. Linares, Paul Stanco, Bozena M. Strodka, Henry M. Strodka to 5 Motion to DismissMotion for Summary Judgment. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
2018-07-12	9	REPLY by Internal Revenue Service re 5 Motion to DismissMotion for Summary Judgment. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
2018-07-13	10	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/13/2018: On the Court's own motion, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-9 and Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count 10 (ECF No. 5 ) is hereby SUBMITTED without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 7/26/2018 is VACATED. If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
2020-06-23	11	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on June 23, 2020: The Court has reviewed all filings related to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to claims 19 and Motion for Summary Judgment as to claim 10. (ECF Nos. 5 , 8 , 9 .) Defendant originally moved to dismiss claims 19 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 5-1 at 1.) In its reply, Defendant requests the Court construe its motion as a motion to dismiss claims 19 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 9 at 2.) In support of its request, Defendant cites Yagman v. Pompeo, 868 F.3d 1075, 108384 (9th Cir. 2017), wherein the Ninth Circuit clarified that the exhaustion requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are jurisprudential, not jurisdictional, and failure to exhaust could be addressed in a motion brought under Rule 12(b)(6). In the alternative, Defendant requests that its entire motion be construed as a motion for summary judgment because the parties do not currently have any disputes of material fact. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) It appears there is no dispute of material fact concerning Plaintiff's failure to exhaust its FOIA claims, and the Court is therefore inclined to treat Defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d). Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause as to why the Court should not construe Defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to file any opposition to the motion construed as such not later than July 8, 2020. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
2020-07-08	12	OPPOSITION by Jose M. Linares et al to 5 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of William A. Cohan)(Cohan, William) Modified on 7/9/2020 (Coll, A). (Entered: 07/08/2020)
2020-07-08	13	DECLARATION of William A. Cohan in opposition to 5 Motion for Summary Judgment,. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
2020-07-09	14	NOTICE of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141 by Jose M. Linares, Maria V. Linares, Paul Stanco, Bozena M. Strodka, Henry M. Strodka. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 07/09/2020)
2020-07-15	15	ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/14/2020 GRANTING 14 Notice of Request to Seal Document, and SEALING [12-1] Declaration of William A. Cohan in its entirety. (Huang, H) (Entered: 07/15/2020)
2020-07-15	16	REQUEST for Leave to File a Supplemental Reply by Internal Revenue Service re 12 Opposition to Motion. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Supplemental Reply, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 7/16/2020 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 07/15/2020)
2020-07-20	17	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/20/2020: Upon consideration of Defendant Internal Revenue Services ("Defendant") unopposed request for leave to file a supplemental reply to address Plaintiffs' supplemental opposition, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's request. (ECF No. 16 .) Defendant shall file and serve its supplemental reply in accordance with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
2020-08-31	18	ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/30/2020 GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5 ) as follows: Claims One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, and Eight are DISMISSED with leave to amend; and Claims Five, Six, Nine, and Ten are DISMISSED without leave to amend. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint not later than fourteen (14) days from the date of electronic filing of this Order. Defendant's responsive pleading is due twenty-one (21) days after Plaintiffs file the amended complaint. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 08/31/2020)
2020-09-09	19	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File First Amended Complaint by Jose M. Linares, et al., . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohan, William) Modified on 9/10/2020 (York, M). (Entered: 09/09/2020)
2020-09-10	20	STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/10/2020 EXTENDING the deadline to 9/28/2020, in which the Plaintiff has to file their First Amended Complaint. Defendant's responsive pleading is due 21 days from the filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Tupolo, A) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
2020-09-28	21	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Internal Revenue Service by Henry M. Strodka, Paul Stanco, Jose M. Linares.(Cohan, William) (Entered: 09/28/2020)
2020-10-07	22	MOTION to AMEND the 21 First Amended Complaint by Jose M. Linares, Paul Stanco, Henry M. Strodka. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2020 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities # 2 Exhibit 1 # 3 Proposed Order)(Cohan, William) Modified on 10/7/2020 (Krueger, M). (Entered: 10/07/2020)
2020-10-15	23	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' 21 First Amended Complaint by Internal Revenue Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 10/15/2020 (Tupolo, A). (Entered: 10/15/2020)
2020-10-16	24	ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/15/2020 EXTENDING the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to 11/2/2020. (Zignago, K.) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
2020-10-30	25	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint re 24 Order, by Internal Revenue Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 10/30/2020 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 10/30/2020)
2020-11-02	26	STIPULATION and ORDER 25 signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/30/2020 POSTPONING the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' pending motion to amend the complaint.(Becknal, R) (Entered: 11/02/2020)
2020-11-20	27	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/20/2020 ORDERING the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22 ) CONTINUED to 12/17/2020 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Counsel for Defendant is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 12/3/2020, for his failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to that motion, pursuant to Local Rule 230(c). Defendant shall file an opposition to the motion, or statement of non-opposition by 12/3/2020. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto and may result in a recommendation that Plaintiffs' motion be granted. Plaintiffs may file a reply to Defendant's opposition, if any, by 12/10/2020. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 11/20/2020)
2020-11-20	28	STATEMENT of NON-OPPOSITION by Internal Revenue Service to 22 Motion to Amend the Complaint/Petition,. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 11/20/2020)
2020-11-23	29	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/23/2020: On the Court's own motion, Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 22 ) is hereby SUBMITTED without oral argument, and the hearing set for 12/17/2020 is VACATED. In light of the unopposed nature of the motion and the Court's heavy caseload, the Court advises the parties that if they wish for a decision in a shorter time frame they should consider submitting a stipulation to amend in place of the motion. The parties will not be penalized in any way for not filing a stipulation. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) Modified on 11/23/2020 (Krueger, M). (Entered: 11/23/2020)
2020-11-30	30	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER to File Second Amended Complaint by Jose M. Linares et al. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohan, William) Modified on 12/1/2020 (Coll, A). (Entered: 11/30/2020)
2020-12-02	31	ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/1/2020 ORDERING that Defendant's responsive pleading is due 14 days from the filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.(Reader, L) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
2020-12-07	32	SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Internal Revenue Service by Henry M. Strodka, Paul Stanco, Jose M. Linares.(Cohan, William) (Entered: 12/07/2020)
2020-12-21	33	MOTION to DISMISS by Internal Revenue Service. Motion Hearing SET for 1/21/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2 (TLN) before District Judge Troy L. Nunley. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) Modified on 12/22/2020 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 12/21/2020)
2021-01-07	34	OPPOSITION by Jose M. Linares, Paul Stanco, Henry M. Strodka to 33 Motion to Dismiss,. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 01/07/2021)
2021-01-11	35	MOTION to APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY on 1/21/2021 33 Motion to Dismiss Hearing by Jose M. Linares, Paul Stanco, Henry M. Strodka. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohan, William) Modified on 1/12/2021 (Huang, H). (Entered: 01/11/2021)
2021-01-11	36	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/11/2021: On the Court's own motion, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-4, 7 and 8 (ECF No. 33 ) is hereby SUBMITTED without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for 1/21/2021 is VACATED. If the Court determines oral argument is necessary, it will be scheduled at a later date. Defendant may still file a reply brief in accordance with Local Rule 230(d) and the 1/21/2021 date. Plaintiffs' Motion to Appear Telephonically (ECF No. 35 ) is DENIED as MOOT. (Text Only Entry) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
2021-01-14	37	REPLY in further support of 33 Motion to Dismiss by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) Modified on 1/15/2021 (Huang, H). (Entered: 01/14/2021)
2021-04-06	38	NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by William Allan Cohan. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 04/06/2021)
2021-08-19	39	NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by William Allan Cohan. (Cohan, William) (Entered: 08/19/2021)
2021-09-01	40	ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/31/2021 DENYING 33 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within twenty- one (21) days of the date of electronic filing date of this Order. (Mena-Sanchez, L) (Entered: 09/01/2021)
2021-09-17	41	STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint re 40 Order on Motion to Dismiss by Internal Revenue Service. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 09/17/2021)
2021-09-17	42	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/17/2021 GRANTING the parties' Stipulation (ECF No. 41 ). The deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is hereby EXTENDED to 9/27/2021. (Text Only Entry) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 09/17/2021)
2021-09-27	43	ANSWER by Internal Revenue Service.(Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 09/27/2021)
2022-12-06	44	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/6/2022: Pursuant to the Court's Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 3 ) filed on 4/11/2018, the parties were directed to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness ("JNTR") after this Court resolved any dispositive motions, or if no motions were filed, 120 days after the close of discovery. As of today's date, no dispositive motion nor a JNTR has been filed. Accordingly, not later than thirty (30) days following the date of this Order, the parties are directed to file a JNTR. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 12/06/2022)
2022-12-27	45	JOINT STATUS REPORT by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 12/27/2022)
2022-12-28	46	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy M. Krueger for District Judge Troy L. Nunley on December 28, 2022: Pursuant to the parties' Joint Status Report (ECF No. 45 ), the parties shall submit no later than May 1, 2023 another Joint Status Report updating the Court on their progress in this case, including a proposed briefing schedule on any remaining disputed issues. (TEXT ONLY ENTRY) (Krueger, M) (Entered: 12/28/2022)
2023-04-04	47	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE by Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: Due to the appointment of District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta to the bench of the Eastern District of California, this action is reassigned from *District Judge Troy L. Nunley* to District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta for all further proceedings. All pending motions are submitted without appearance and without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and the hearing on said motions is VACATED. If the Court subsequently concludes that oral argument is necessary, a hearing will be set and the parties notified accordingly. Further, all pretrial conference and trial dates currently set in this reassigned action are VACATED and shall be reset, as necessary, by the reassigned Court. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 04/04/2023)
2023-04-28	48	JOINT STATUS REPORT by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 04/28/2023)
2023-05-01	49	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy G. Michel for District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 5/1/2023: The Court ADOPTS the proposed schedule provided in the 48 Joint Status Report. The parties shall file a further joint status report updating the Court on their progress in this case, including a proposed briefing schedule on any remaining disputed issues, no later than July 7, 2023. IT IS SO ORDERED. [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) (Entered: 05/01/2023)
2023-07-07	50	JOINT STATUS REPORT by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 07/07/2023)
2023-07-07	51	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy G. Michel for District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 7/7/2023: The Court ADOPTS the proposed schedule provided in the 50 Joint Status Report. The parties shall file a further joint status report updating the Court on their progress in this case, including a proposed briefing schedule on any remaining disputed issues, within forty-five (45) days. IT IS SO ORDERED. [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) (Entered: 07/07/2023)
2023-09-15	52	JOINT STATUS REPORT by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
2023-09-17	53	MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy G. Michel for District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 9/17/2023: The Court ADOPTS the proposed schedule provided in the 52 Joint Status Report. Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 12/4/2023; Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion no later than 2/2/2024; Defendant shall file its reply, if any, no later than 3/4/2024. Further, Defendant's motion shall be noticed for hearing on 3/28/2024 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 10 before District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. IT IS SO ORDERED. [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) (Entered: 09/17/2023)
2023-12-01	54	STIPULATION of DISMISSAL with prejudice by Internal Revenue Service. (Ho, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2023)
2023-12-04	55	CASE DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to F.R.Cv.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See 54 Stipulation for Dismissal. CASE CLOSED. [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) (Entered: 12/04/2023)
Hide Docket Events