Maxcrest Limited v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXCREST LIMITED,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-16587
D.C. No. 3:15-mc-80270-JST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District
Judge.
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the
District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Maxcrest Ltd. alleges that the government issued and reissued a summons in
bad faith, because only on reissue was it given notice and opportunity to complain
that the summons was issued in bad faith. Bad faith exists where a summons is
issued without a legitimate or proper purpose, to abuse a court’s process, to harass
a taxpayer, to improperly use the requested information, or otherwise to go fishing.
United States v. Clarke, 134 S.Ct. 2361, 2367 (2014); United States v. Powell, 379
U.S. 48, 57–58 (1964); United States v. Jose, 131 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1997);
Liberty Fin. Servs. v. United States, 778 F.2d 1390, 1392–93 (9th Cir. 1985). The
government reissued the summons so that Maxcrest could have its opportunity to
complain. Finally armed with that opportunity, Maxcrest now fails to allege even a
single improper purpose behind either summons. The district court’s order is thus
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --