USA v. Holmes
Plaintiff: USA
Defendant: James F. Holmes
Case Number: 1:2008cv02446
Filed: November 10, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Taxes Office
County: Boulder
Presiding Judge: Walker D. Miller
Presiding Judge: Craig B Shaffer
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Jury Demanded By: 26:7403 Suit to Enforce Federal Tax Lien

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER denying 99 United States' Motion for Indicative Ruling Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/25/13.(mnfsl, )
April 11, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER. The 84 final judgment in this case shall be supplemented to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff United States of America and against defendant on Claim 3 of the United States' Amended Complaint in the amount of $2,533,930.94. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/11/12. (mnfsl, )
March 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER. The 78 Renewed Motion for Entry of Judgment is granted. Judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiff United States of America and against defendant on Claim 3 of the United States' Amended Complaint and the United States' remaining c laims are dismissed as moot. On or after 4/6/2012, the Court shall supplement the judgment to include the total amount of defendant's liability to the United States as of that date. This case shall be closed in its entirety. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/26/12.(mnfsl, )
February 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. The 64 Motion for Entry of Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Upon entry of final judgment in this case, judgment shall enter in favor of the United States and against defendant in the amount of $923,049.00 plus interest on that amount pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(a) from July 28, 1998 until entry of judgment. Within seven days of entry of this order, the United States shall file a renewed motion for entry of judgmen t which includes the dates of the post-July 28, 1998 distributions, a calculation of interest on each distribution pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(a), and an updated calculation of the total tax liability. Defendant may file a response within seven days thereafter. Judgment shall not enter until further order of the Court. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/24/12.(mnfsl, )
June 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER. In order to bring this case to a conclusion, the parties are hereby ordered to file on or before 6/15/2011 a status report or other necessary motions in order to determine final issues in this matter. By Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/2/11. (mnf, )
March 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The 51 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Claim 3 of the Amended Complaint; Defendant is liable as transferee of t he assets of CGCI for CGCI's tax deficiency, as determined by the Tax Court, and some award of interest and appropriate penalties. The motion is denied as to the full amount sought by the government ($3,671,110), without prejudice to the go vernment's filing another motion to establish the amount to which it is entitled. Because Claim 3 resolves the issues, the Motion for Summary Judgment denied as moot as to the remaining claims in the Amended Complaint, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 3/30/11.(mnf, )
October 25, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER denying 43 Defendant James F. Holmes's Motion for Certification, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 10/25/10.(ebs, )
July 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER denying 29 Defendant James F. Holmes' Combined Motion to Dismiss First and Second Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Judgment on the Pleadings Dismissing the Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for which any Relief Can Be Granted, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 7/12/10.(lyg, )
October 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 27 MINUTE ORDER granting 25 Motion to Vacate and resetting Settlement Conference to 12/16/2009, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom A 402, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/30/09.(cbssec)
June 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER denying 7 Defendant Holmes' Motion to Dismiss. Government to file amended complaint setting forth correct statute under which it brings Claim Three, by Judge Walker D. Miller on 6/25/09.(gms, )
June 12, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 19 MINUTE ORDER granting 17 Motion to Vacate Discovery Deadlines. All pretrial deadlines and future hearings are vacated and matter stayed pending ruling on motion to dismiss, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 6/12/09.(gmssl, ) Modified on 6/15/2009 to correct typographical error (gmssl, ).
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: USA v. Holmes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: USA
Represented By: Rickey Watson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: James F. Holmes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?