United States of America v. Su Chang Mun

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 24-cv-07623-MMC

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING BERNIER-MUN’S 12 v. MOTION TO INTERVENE

13 SU CHANG MUN, 14 Defendant.

15 Before the Court is Kelly Bernier-Mun’s (“Bernier-Mun”) “Motion to Intervene and 16 Assert Ownership Interest,” filed December 17, 2025. Plaintiff United States and 17 defendant Su Chang Mun have filed opposition, to which Bernier-Mun has replied. 18 Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, 19 the Court rules as follows.1 20 The United States brings the above-titled action “to reduce to judgment 21 outstanding federal tax liabilities assessed against Su Chang Mun.” (See Compl. ¶ 1.) 22 By the instant motion, Bernier-Mun, defendant Su Chang Mun’s former spouse, seeks, 23 pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to intervene in the 24 above-titled action for the purpose of protecting her ownership interest in a property 25 located at 1623 Kathleen Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95815 (“Kathleen Avenue property”). 26 (See Doc. No. 37 at 2-3.) The Kathleen Avenue property is the subject of a separate 27 1 action filed in the Eastern District of California, see United States v. Su Chang Mun et 2 al., No. 25-cv-01406-DJC-AC (“Eastern District action”),2 whereby the United States 3 “seeks to foreclose on federal tax liens which encumber [defendant Su Chang Mun’s] 4 ownership interest” (see Doc. No. 40, Pls.’ Opp. at 2.) Bernier-Mun is a named 5 defendant in the Eastern District action. (See id. at 3); see also 26 U.S.C § 7403(b) 6 (providing, in relevant part, “all persons . . . claiming any interest in the property involved 7 in [an action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax] shall be made 8 parties”). 9 A party is entitled to intervene where such party “claims an interest relating to the 10 property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing 11 of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its 12 interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” See Fed R. Civ. P. 13 24(a)(2). 14 In this instance, Bernier-Mun fails to show her interest in the Kathleen Avenue 15 property relates to the subject of the above-titled action. The instant action only concerns 16 the individual tax liability of defendant Su Chang Mun, which Bernier-Mun, a third-party, 17 has no standing to contest. See Graham v. United States, 243 F.2d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 18 1957) (holding “only the taxpayer may question the assessment for taxes”); Al-Kim, Inc. 19 v. United States, 650 F.2d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding “[n]either the Internal 20 Revenue Code nor the decisions of [the Ninth Circuit] support any right of third parties to 21 contest the merits of a tax assessment”). 22 Moreover, to the extent Bernier-Mun asserts the instant and Eastern District 23 actions may be resolved in a “global settlement” that, according to Bernier-Mun, “could 24 materially affect [her] interests without her participation” (see Doc. No. 44 at 2), such 25 2 In their respective written submissions in support of and in opposition to the 26 motion, Bernier-Mun, as well as both parties, cite to several filings in the Eastern District action. The Court takes judicial notice of those filings. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 27 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding “court may take judicial notice of matters of 1 concern is unfounded. As noted, Bernier-Mun is a named defendant in the Eastern 2 District action, and there is no indication she would not be a necessary party to any such 3 || settlement. 4 Next, a district court has discretion to allow intervention by a party who is not 5 || entitled to intervene. Such permissive intervention, however, is only appropriate where 6 || the proposed intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a 7 || common question of law or fact.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).° 8 In this instance, as discussed above, Bernier-Mun does not have a “claim or 9 defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” in that, she, 10 || as a third-party, has no right to contest the merits of the tax assessments levied against 11 defendant Su Chang Mun. See, e.g., United States v. McGrew, No. 14-cv-02647, 2014 g 12 || WL 7877053, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2014) (finding ex-spouse was third-party “not 13 || entitled to dispute the validity of assessments with respect to [her former husband’s] S 14 || individuall] tax liabilities”), aff'd, 669 F. App’x 831 (9th Cir. 2016). Further, to the extent 8 15 Bernier-Mun alternatively “requests limited or permissive intervention . . . for the narrow é 16 || purpose of clarifying that ownership of the Kathleen Avenue Property remains 17 || unresolved,” the Court finds such relief unwarranted given Bernier-Mun’s appearance in 5 18 || the Eastern District action. 19 For the reasons stated above, Bernier-Mun’s motion to intervene is hereby 20 |} DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: March 16, 2026 fins Clot MAXINE M. CHESNEY 24 United States District Judge 25 26 8. Although Bernier-Mun raises permissive intervention only in her reply brief, the 97 || issue is discussed by plaintiff and defendant in their respective oppositions. (See Doc. No. 40 at 4-5; Doc. No. 39 at 3-4.) Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to address 2g || Said issue herein.