U.S. v. YOUNG, Cite as 106 AFTR 2d 2010-XXXX, 12/09/2010 ________________________________________ UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Sheila Young; Deane Young; Kennith Defoor; Accurate Consulting, LLC; and D4 Accounting, Consulting, Tax Services, Inc., Defendants. Case Information: Code Sec(s): Court Name: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, Docket No.: No. CV-10-8193-PHX-DGC, Date Decided: 12/09/2010. Disposition: HEADNOTE . Reference(s): OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, ORDER Judge: David G. Campbell United States District Judge The United States filed a complaint for injunctive relief on October 4, 2010, alleging Defendants promote fraudulent tax schemes and have prepared hundreds of frivolous tax returns resulting in the issuance of more than two million dollars in erroneous refunds. Doc. 1. On October 15, 2010, each individual Defendant filed an “affidavit of notary presentment.” Docs. 5, 6, 7. The government construes those documents as motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and has filed a response. Doc. 10. No reply has been filed, and no party has requested oral argument. Although the individual Defendants are proceeding pro se, they “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendants appear to challenge this Court's jurisdiction in their affidavits, but do not seek dismissal pursuant to any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over this federal tax case. See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 3–4; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340, 1345; 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402, 7407, 7408. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they are residents or citizens of Arizona. See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 6–10; Docs. 5, 6, 7 at 2. Defendants' affidavits will be denied to the extent they seek dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court declines the government's invitation to deem all Defendants as having been served with process. Doc. 10 at 2. The government shall effect service of process as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The individual Defendants are advised that if they wish to proceed pro se, they must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). See King, 814 F.2d at 567;Jacobsen v. Filler , 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants “should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 [57 AFTR 2d 86-1009] (9th Cir. 1986) (“Although pro se, [a litigant] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk's Office and are available online at the Court's Internet website: www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled “Opinions/Orders/Rules”). All motions and other filing must comply fully with the Court's local rules, including the rules governing the form of papers (LRCiv 7.1) and page limits (LRCiv 7.2). The corporate Defendants may appear in this case only through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–202 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries ... that a corporation may appear in federal courts only through licensed counsel.”) (citing Osborn v. President of Bank of U.S., 9 Wheat. 738, 829, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824)); D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule that “corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.””) (alteration and citation omitted); In re Am. W. Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); United States v. High Country Broad. Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a corporation's president and sole shareholder could not make an “end run around” the counsel requirement by intervening pro se rather than retaining counsel to represent the corporation). IT IS ORDERED: (1.) Defendants' Affidavits of Notary Presentment (Docs. 5, 6, 7) are denied to the extent they may be construed as motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (2.) The government shall effect service of process as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DATED this 9th day of December, 2010. David G. Campbell United States District Judge www.irstaxattorney.com 888-712-7690