You are on page 1of 8

ll:v

we
::C.-i
UQJ
W:!:
ai::J

llli:

...100\
oo:::
Q c .!!!
zoe
.........
en
c -
u.Em
0
Ulu
10
IIIS:o

UoQJ

1'-
oz


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Randolf Krbechek (SBN 143120)
LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLF KRBECHEK
9477 N. Fort Washington Road, Suite 104
Fresno, California 93730
Telephone: (559) 434-4500
Facsimile: (559) 434-4554
Email: rkrbechek@msn.com
Attorneys for Steven Booth and Louise Booth
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BOOTH and LOUISE BOOTH, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, l
ACACIA CORPORATE
MANAGEMENT LLC, Does 1-25, )
inclusive; and Ali Persons Unknown )
Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, )
Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )
Property Described in the Complaint )
Adverse to Plaintiffs' Title or Any Cloud)
Upon Plaintiffs' Title Thereto, Named )
Herein as Does 26 through 50, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )
)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. )
Case No. CV F 12-0171 A WI GSA
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
OF STEVEN AND LOUISE BOOTH
Date: May 21,2012
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Dept: 10
23
24
Steven Booth and Louise Booth respectfully submit their Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint of Steven and Louise
25 Booth as follows.
26 I.
27
SUMMARY.
Steven Booth and Louise Booth are filing this opposition in response to the
28 motion filed by defendants Michael Ioane and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC.
1
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Defendants' motion specifically seeks the following relief:
"Michael Ioane and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC
will move the Court to dismiss the Complaint of Steven and
Louise Booth on grounds the claims stated therein are
actually unauthorized attempts at tax collection that are
barred by federal law, and no court would have jurisdiction
over them." Motion to Dismiss, page 1, lines 23-26.
(Emphasis added)
Defendants' characterization of this action, which was removed from Kern
County court, is incorrect. Necessarily, the power to collect taxes levied by the federal
9 government rests in the federal government. Mr. and Mrs. Booth have never filed an
10 action to collect any taxes from defendants, nor do they have the power to do so.
11 By this action, Mr. and Mrs. Booth have sought to quiet title to the three
12 properties against the adverse claims made by defendants. Such action is properly pled,
13 and includes all elements required by state law. Accordingly, the motion should be
14 denied.
15 II.
16
THE CoMPLAINT PLEADs A CLAIM FOR QuiET TITLE.
The complaint in this action pleads a cause of action for quiet title, and sets forth
17 the statutory elements. The charging allegations are set forth, verbatim, below:
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28



"11. Title to Parcel 1 is claimed by plaintiffs as of October 2, 1996
pursuant to that certain deed recorded October 2, 1996, as
Instrument No. 0196128341 of Kern County Official Records.
"12. Title to Parcell is claimed by plaintiffs as of December 29,
1994 pursuant to that certain deed recorded December 29, 1994, as
Instrument No. 183279 of Kern County Official Records.
"13. Title to Parcel3 is claimed by plaintiffs as of December 9,
1986 pursuant to that certain deed recorded December 9, 1986 in
Book 5945 Page(s) 2397, as Instrument No. 072921 of Kern County
Official Records.
1
Paragraph 9 of the complaint sets forth the legal description of the three parcels
in question. It 1s a lengthy description, and the court may refer to the pleading for the
full description.
2
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
wo
:Z:..-t
UQJ
W;!:
12
IIIII ::I
III:UlO
,M

13
...100'1
oa:
Q c: .!!!
14
zoe:
..........
Cl,E
c: -
u.:.C:ro
15
OVIU
fiJ '


16
UOQJ

U.
oz 17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"14. Plaintiffs fell victim to a series of illegal and unenforceable tax
avoidance schemes that were promoted by defendant Michael Scott
Ioane. As part of the tax avoidance schemes, the Property was
transferred into various entities, culminating in conveyances to
Michael Scott Ioane, as an individual, as to 5% ownership interest
in the Property and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC as to a
95% ownership interest in the Property.
"15. The tax avoidance schemes, and the various conveyances of
the Property, were without economic substance, and culminated
the U.S. government filing a criminal tax indictment against
plaintiff Steven Booth and also Michael Scott loane.
"16. The conveyances of the Property to Defendants were not
bona fide transactions. Defendants duped and deceived plaintiffs
to achieve the conveyances.
"17. The Property was conveyed to Defendants without
consideration. Defendants do not have any equitable claim to the
Property .
"18. Plaintiffs' title to the Property is based on the written
instruments described in paragraphs 11 through 13, above.
"19. Defendants claim an interest in the Property as the holder of
recorded title, which interest is adverse to plaintiffs.
"20. Plaintiffs are seeking and entitled to quiet title against all
adverse claims (the 'Adverse Claims') to the Property by defendants
Michael Scott loane and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC and
all persons claiming by or through said defendants, as well as
against the Unknown Defendants named in paragraph 6, above.
"21. The Adverse Claims are without merit. Plaintiffs are the true
and equitable owners of the Property.
"22. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants Michael Scott
Ioane and Acacia Corporate Management, LLC have no right, title,
or interest in or to the Property that is adverse to that of plaintiffs."
The foregoing allegations set forth all elements required for relief under the quiet
title law. Code Civ. Proc. 761.020; see, also, Strauss v. Summerhays (1984) 157
Cal.App.3d 806, 812 ("Looking at the pleadings in this action, we find Strauss and
3
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1 Summerhays each sought to quiet title to the residence. Both the complaint and the
2 cross-complaint allege the elements of a quiet title action, and the prayers request a
3 determination of title").
4 Let's be candid about what is going on here. Mr. Ioane is in federal prison,
5 serving a 108-month sentence as a result of his felony conviction for the fraudulent tax
6 schemes that he concocted with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Booth. In connection with his
7 fraudulent tax schemes, Mr. Ioane and his limited liability company assert ownership
8 of the Booths' real property which is the subject of this action. Defendants want to
9 deprive Mr. and Mrs. Booth of ownership of their property. By this action, Mr. and
10 Mrs. Booth seek to right such wrong. The complaint is properly pled, and is not
11 subject to dismissal for the reason stated by defendants (i.e., that the action is "actually
12 unauthorized attempts at tax collection that are barred by federal law").
13 III.
14
15
16
17
18
DEFENDANTS ARE MISLEADING THIS COURT REGARDING THE 2007
CASE.
In the Motion to Dismiss, defendants make the following startling argument:
"It is also undeniable the Booths' complaint is a virtual
carbon copy of the 2007 federal claim that had already been
filed against them by Acacia and Ioane." Motion to
Dismiss, page 4, lines 5-7.
19 Defendants' "virtual carbon copy" representation is untrue. No reasonable
20 attorney could advocate such a position. Here are the facts.
21 A. On August 3, 2007, Mr. Ioane filed an Action to Quiet Title and for Damages
22 in this court as Case No. 1:07-CV-1129. The original federal civil complaint did not
23 seek affirmative relief against Mr. and Mrs. Booth. Mr. Ioane's complaint is pled in
24 four counts. All four counts seek relief only as against the federal government.
25 Mr. Ioane set forth no charging allegations against Mr. and Mrs. Booth, and the prayer
26 for relief sought no relief against Mr. and Mrs. Booth.
27 B. On September 25, 2007, this court entered a pleading entitled "Quiet Title
28 Pursuant to Binding Stipulated Settlement & Agreement Between the Parties Herein."
4
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1 As to the stipulation, the court will note the following:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8





The quiet title action seeks no relief against Mr. and Mrs. Booth.
Thus, the stipulation purports to grant relief that was not sought in the
underlying action.
The stipulation is not a judgment .
The stipulation was prepared by Mr. Ioane as part of the tax avoidance
scheme devised by him.
At the time of the pleading, the federal government had not yet appeared
in the action.
9 C. On October 12, 2007, Mr. loane filed a First Amended Complaint: Action to
10 Quiet Title and for Damages in Case No. 1:07-CV-1129. As before, the first amended
11 complaint sought no relief as against Mr. and Mrs. Booth.
12 D. On February 6, 2008, Mr. loane dismissed Mr. and Mrs. Booth from Case
13 No. 1:07-CV-1129.
14 The complaint in this action pleads a cause of action for quiet title, and sets forth
15 the statutory elements. In contrast, the federal civil complaint did not seek affirmative
16 relief against Mr. and Mrs. Booth, and did not make a claim sufficient under the quiet
17 title statutes. Quiet title proceedings are governed by statute. A complaint which fails
18 to plead the elements required in Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020 cannot
19 support a judgment for quiet title. See, e.g., Jensen v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 702
20 F.Supp.2d 1183, 1198 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ("JPMorgan argues that the FAC does not allege
21 the title of the Plaintiff, the basis of the title, and the adverse claims to the title.
22 JPMorgan is correct. Plaintiff has not alleged these items").
23 Eventually, the ownership of the real properties described in the quiet title com-
24 plaint must be straightened out. To the extent the interlocutory order dated September
25 25, 2007 affected title, such order was not reduced to a judgment. When Mr. Ioane
26 amended the complaint, the legal effect was to re-open the period for Mr. and Mrs.
27 Booth to respond to the amended complaint. Thereafter, Mr. Ioane dismissed Mr. and
28 Mrs. Booth from the federal civil case on February 6, 2008.
5
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1 Accordingly, there is no claim pending between the parties in the 2007 case; there
2 is no enforceable judgment arising out of the 2007 case; and the interlocutory order
3 necessarily dissolved when the 2007 case was amended and subsequently dismissed
4 without judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Booth. Under the merger doctrine, the
5 stipulation has no ongoing effect: As stated by the Supreme Court, "this order of the
6 District Court did not make any step toward final disposition of the merits of the case
7 and will not be merged in final judgment." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,
8 337 u.s. 541,546 (1949).
CONCLUSION. 9 IV.
10 The essential factual dispute- who owns the real property- has never been
11 adjudicated in any past or present action. Mr. Ioane stands convicted of tax fraud as a
12 result of his actions involving Mr. and Mrs. Booth. Defendants never affirmatively
13 sought relief against Mr. and Mrs. Booth in Case No. 1:07-CV-1129, and dismissed
14 them from such action.
15 The court should deny this motion. Since Mr. and Mrs. Booth are not parties to
16 Case No. 1:07-CV-1129, the court can never enter a judgment therein granting the relief
17 set forth in the quiet title stipulation.
18 Further, the court should sua sponte vacate the pleading entitled "Quiet Title
19 Pursuant to Binding Stipulated Settlement & Agreement Between the Parties Herein" as
20 entered on September 25, 2007 in Case No. 1:07-CV-1129. Such pleading is the result
21 of a fraud perpetuated on the court by Mr. Ioane. See, e.g., In re Cole, 202 B.R. 356,
22 362 (Bkrtcy. S.D. N.Y. 1996) ("Bankruptcy court can look behind a collusive judgment
23 procured by fraud or other inappropriate means, and disallow the underlying claim");
24 Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305 (1996) ("The requirement of finality precludes
25 consideration of decisions that are subject to revision, and even of fully consummated
26 decisions that are but steps towards final judgment in which they will
27 Ill/
28 ////
6
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint
1 merge").
2
3
DATED: May 4, 2012.
OF RANDOLF KRBECHEK
4
5 By:
6
7
8
9
10
llli:oq-
11
wo
:J:.-i
UQJ
W;'.:
12
IID::J
D!UlO
llli: ~ M
1:::11'
13
LL.roM
-100\
oa::
Q c: .!!:!
14
zoe:
..... .._
= CI,E
.!: =
u..c:IO
15
otllu
10 ~
Cl)$:0
W-e5i
16
UOQJ
~ u . . . t
.... .
oz 17
~ ~
j ~ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint

Wo
::C.-t
UQJ
W;!:
alj;j


""
ll.ft)M
-'00\
oa::
Q c: .!!!
zoe:
.........
= CI,E
c: -
.... :c""i5
0
Ulu
10
(1)3:0

UOQJ

II.
oz

jd';
1
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
3 ) ss.
COUNTY OF FRESNO )
4
I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. I am over the age of
5 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 9477 N. Fort
Washington Road, Suite 104, Fresno, CA 93730.
6
On May 4, 2012, I served the foregoing document(s) described as Memorandum
7 of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint of Steven and
Louise Booth by placing (X) true copies ( ) the original thereof enclosed in a sealed
8 envelope addressed as follows on the below-nameCl in this action:
9
10
11
12
13 (X)
14
15
16
17 ( )
18
( )
19
20 (X)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
William McPike, Esq.
257 East Bellevue Road #188
Atwater, CA 95301
G. Patrick Jennings, Esq.
Trial Attorneys, Tax Division
U.S. De_partment of Justice
Post Office Box 683
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044-0683
(BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be
Cleposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon
fully prepaid at Fresno, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
(BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I caused such envelope(s) to be deposited in the
United Parcel Service overnight mail box at Fresno, California.
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the foregomg is true and correct.
(FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on May 4, 2012, at Fresno, California.
8
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint