874 F.2d 817
Unpublished Disposition
VARDAX CONSULTANTS (CANADA), INC., A Canadian corporation;
Dara M. Wilder; Seona Vaughn-Pope Wilder,
Petitioners-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Reginald H. Norberg; Rainier
National Bank, (third party recordkeeper),
Respondents-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
VARDAX CONSULTANTS (CANADA), INC., Petitioner-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Reginald H. Norberg; Seafirst
Bank, (third party recordkeeper),
Respondents-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
UNITED STATES of America; Reginald Norberg,
Petitioners-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
Dara M. WILDER; Vardax Consultants, Inc., (Canada); Vardax
Consultants, Inc., (U.S.),
Respondents-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Nos. 87-3814, 87-3941, 87-3815, 87-3936, 87-4208 and 87-4263.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 1988.
Withdrawn from Submission Nov. 14, 1988.
Resubmitted April 18, 1989.
Decided April 20, 1989.
Before NELSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and ALFREDO C. MARQUEZ,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM**
These consolidated appeals were withdrawn from submission pending decision of United States v. Stuart, 57 U.S.L.W. 4263 (U.S. February 28, 1989). Appellants first argue for reversal of the orders enforcing the IRS summonses based upon our opinion in United States v. Stuart, 813 F.2d 243 (9th Cir.1987). Appellants' arguments are no longer availing in light of the Supreme Court's Stuart opinion. We have carefully considered the appellants' challenges to the evidentiary hearings and to the scope and propriety of the summons and find no error. Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1307, 1308 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Stuckey, 646 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, we affirm the orders enforcing the summonses.
The district courts prohibited the IRS from sharing the summoned information with Canadian Revenue authorities unless further ordered by the district courts. The government cross-appeals and challenges the conditional enforcement. The district courts clearly have the discretion so to condition enforcement. United States v. Author Services, 804 F.2d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Zolin, 809 F.2d 1411, 1416-17 (9th Cir.1987), as amended 842 F.2d 1135, cert. granted, 109 S.Ct. 257 (1988) (argued March 20, 1989). We find no abuse of discretion in the grant of the conditional enforcement orders. Id.
Lastly, the government challenges the propriety of the district courts' grant of automatic stays of enforcement pending appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Compare NLRB v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir.1988) (stay of similar enforcement order not to be granted as a matter of right under Rule 62(d)). Due to the disposition of this case on the merits, this issue is moot and need not be reached.
AFFIRMED.