United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge
before the Court is Plaintiff Julie Dinwiddie's
(“Julie”) Motion for Additional Time Within Which to
Disclose Advancing Expert Witnesses and Rebuttal Witnesses
(“Motion”). Dkt. 27. Having reviewed the record
and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motions
without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).
Based on the following, the Court finds good cause to GRANT
case revolves around the transfer of 100% of the shares of
stock in Evergreen Nursery, Inc. (“ENI”) from
Jeff Dinwiddie (“Jeff”) to his wife, Julie, on
January 5, 2012. In January 2012, ENI was no longer an
operating entity and its only asset was real estate located
at 12580 Old Seward Highway in Anchorage, Alaska (the
“Property”). At the time Jeff transferred the
stock, his federal tax liabilities exceeded five-million
December 2012, ENI sold the Property to Condor LLC
(“Condor”) and provided seller financing to
Condor. Under the seller financing agreement, Condor makes
monthly payments to ENI, which accumulates in a bank account
in ENI's name.
March 2018, Julie, as the sole owner of ENI, directed the
bank to transfer more than $94, 000 from the ENI bank account
to her personal account. The IRS levied these funds in
partial satisfaction of Jeff's federal tax liability.
Julie then filed this case on May 7, 2018, alleging that the
IRS wrongfully levied on her property to satisfy the federal
tax liabilities of her husband. Dkt. 1.
relevant to the Motion, on June 27, 2018, the United States
filed an answer to Julie's Complaint, asserting as its
only affirmative defense that Julie was a nominee of her
husband with respect to ENI. Then, on February 5, 2019, in a
response to an interrogatory, the United States stated that
Jeff's transfer to Julie “was fraudulent under the
laws of the State of Alaska.” Dkt. 31-1, at 8. Roughly
six months later, on August 1, 2019, the United States filed
an Amended Answer, adding fraudulent transfer as an
affirmative defense. Dkt. 26. August 1, 2019, was also the
expert rebuttal disclosures cutoff, but due to a series of
stipulated delays and extensions, Julie had until August 20,
2019, to submit rebuttal reports.
filed this Motion on August 27, 2019, asking the Court to
extend the expert discovery cutoff date. She argues that the
affirmative defense of fraudulent conveyance is different
than the affirmative defense that she was a nominee of her
husband. With this new affirmative defense, Julie contends
she will need to submit an additional expert report that will
provide a proper valuation of the ENI stock that was
transferred, rather than the valuation of the Property. The
United States counters that Julie was aware of its intent to
provide evidence of fraudulent transfer because it stated
such in a response to interrogatories. According to the
United States, since Julie did not diligently seek this
discovery between February 5, 2019, and the close of expert
discovery, there is no good cause to modify the scheduling
order to allow her additional expert report.
entered, a scheduling order “controls the course of the
action unless the court modifies it.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(e). This scheduling order “may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge's consent.”
Id. at 16(b)(4). A district court may modify the
pretrial schedule “if it cannot reasonably be met
despite the diligence of the party seeking the
extension.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee's
notes (1983 amendment). The focus of the inquiry, therefore,
is upon the moving party's reasons for seeking
modification. C.F. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist.
654 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson v.
Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir.
1992); T. Dorfman, Inc. v. Melaleuca, Inc., 2013 WL
5676808 (D. Idaho October 18, 2013) at *2.