FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN B. RAMIREZ, aka Johnny Rhondo, No. 14-56604
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00581-JLS-AN
JUANDA K. ANDERSON; PRO
BUSINESS COACH, INC., MEMORANDUM*
Petitioners - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
John B. Ramirez, aka Johnny Rhondo, and Juanda K. Anderson appeal pro
se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their amended
petition to quash Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses issued to third-party
financial institutions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction
because Appellants failed to mail their petition to the summoned financial
institutions. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(B) (any person who brings a proceeding
to quash a summons “shall mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the
petition to the person summoned”); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7609–4(b)(3) (“If a person
entitled to notice of the summons fails to give proper and timely notice to either the
summoned person or the IRS . . . , that person has failed to institute a proceeding to
quash and the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.”); Mollison v.
United States, 568 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 7609(b)(2) is the
government’s consent to waive sovereign immunity, and the government’s
conditions on consent must be strictly observed; courts lack jurisdiction unless
claims meet terms of waiver).
We reject Appellants’ contentions that they were improperly served with the
2 14-56604
summonses, and that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Appellants’ motion to consolidate, set forth in their opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56604