Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
10-56223•Pamfila R. Camangian v. United States of America
10-56223Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit30.07.2012
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMFILA R. CAMANGIAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
No. 10-56223
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06718-AHM-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 10-56223
Pamfila Camangian appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her
action for tax refunds and damages under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7422 and 7433. We review
de novo. Carver v. Holder, 606 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir. 2010) (summary
judgment); BNSF Ry. Co. v. O’Dea, 572 F.3d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Camangian’s
refunds claim because she failed to raise a genuine dispute as to whether the
overpayments were applied to her back taxes before the automatic stay was lifted.
See Carver, 606 F.3d at 695 (summary judgment is proper where “‘the pleadings
and supporting documents . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to a material
fact’” (citation omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Camangian’s damages claim for lack
of jurisdiction because, although given repeated opportunities, Camangian did not
allege that she had exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to the
damages claim. See 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1); Conforte v. United States, 979 F.2d
1375, 1377 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts lack jurisdiction to hear actions for damages
under § 7433 when plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.