Jodi Hohman v. Maurice Eadie, 894 F.3d 776

IRS served two John Doe summonses on Chase Bank in September 2015 seeking records for three accounts identified only by account numbers, but did not obtain prior district-court approval required by I.R.C. § 7609(f).
Chase notified Jodi Hohman and JHohman, LLC; Hohman and JHohman filed to quash. Discovery revealed the three accounts belonged to JHohman, LLC; You Got Busted By Me, LLC (Busted, LLC); and Hohman individually; Chase did not produce records for Hohman’s individual account in response to the second summons.
Plaintiffs (Hohman, JHohman, LLC, Miller, and Busted, LLC) sued the United States under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), among other claims; district court dismissed other claims and narrowed the case to the RFPA claim against the United States.
The district court allowed limited jurisdictional discovery, then held (1) Hohman individually failed to state an RFPA claim because no records were obtained as to her account, and (2) LLCs (JHohman and Busted) are not "customers" under the RFPA’s waiver of sovereign immunity, so the United States is immune from suit by those LLCs.
Plaintiffs appealed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on sovereign-immunity grounds and therefore did not resolve whether the RFPA applies when the IRS fails to follow Code procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IRS John Doe summonses are subject to the RFPA when the IRS fails to follow I.R.C. procedures	RFPA applies if IRS did not act "in accordance with" the Code; because IRS failed to get court approval, RFPA governs (citing Neece)	RFPA exception for disclosures "in accordance with procedures authorized by [the Code]" bars RFPA claims for IRS summonses generally	Not decided on the merits — court avoided the question because it affirmed dismissal on sovereign-immunity grounds
Whether LLCs qualify as a "customer" under RFPA waiver of sovereign immunity (12 U.S.C. § 3417)	Single-member LLCs should be covered because they resemble sole proprietorships and are disregarded for tax purposes; RFPA’s purpose supports coverage	Waiver of sovereign immunity is textual and must be construed narrowly; an LLC is not an "individual or a partnership of five or fewer individuals"	Held: LLCs do not fall within the RFPA definition of "person/customer"; sovereign immunity bars their suits against the United States
Whether district court abused discretion by limiting jurisdictional discovery to Plaintiffs’ Chase accounts	Plaintiffs sought broader subpoenas to other banks and information about other individuals with possible John Doe summonses	Government argued discovery beyond the named accounts was speculative and overbroad	Held: No abuse of discretion; limiting discovery to accounts at issue was proper to resolve jurisdictional questions

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (motivating congressional enactment of RFPA and explaining customers’ Fourth Amendment expectations)
Neece v. IRS, 922 F.2d 573 (10th Cir. 1990) (RFPA applies where IRS fails to follow Code procedures)
Shaw v. United States, 20 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 7433 does not provide damages for tax assessment/determination)
Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. United States, 771 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1985) (RFPA protection limited to individuals and small partnerships, not corporations)
Exchange Point LLC v. U.S. SEC, 100 F. Supp. 2d 172 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (LLC not within RFPA’s text-based definition of "person")
Inspector Gen. of U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Great Lakes Bancorp, 825 F. Supp. 790 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (partnerships of five or fewer individuals included; analysis of partnership types)
Spa Flying Service, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1984) (RFPA unambiguously limits protection to customers and small partnerships)