Whether 26 U.S.C. § 7434 allows civil liability for fraudulent information returns to extend beyond the individual or entity legally required to file the Form 1099 to other parties who allegedly 'cause' such a return to be filed

here. This Court is empowered to “correct” state-court “judgments” where, as here, they “incorrectly adjudge federal rights.” Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 125-126 (1945). As the California Court of Appeal’s Opinion (Exhibit A) and citations therein indicate, the federal question presented here is a pure, issue that has divided federal and state courts throughout the United States. In particular, 26 U.S.C. § 7434 directs that: “If any person willfully files a fraudulent information return,” such as an IRS Form 1099, “with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such other person may bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return.” 26 U.S.C. § 7424(a), emphasis added. The issue presented here—and throughout the proceedings below—is whether section 7434 and its phrase “person so filing such return” limit the scope of statutory liability to the individual or entity filing a Form 1099 information return, or whether, as the Court of Appeal held, the phrase “extend|[s] liability to those who cause a fraudulent information return to be filed.” (Opinion, Exhibit A, at p. 14.) The issue has great significance to all Form 1099 payers, all 1099 payees, as well as those who assist with filing the ubiquitous Form 1099s. Whether the scope of civil liability for an allegedly fraudulent Form 1099 is limited just to the payer legally required to file it, or instead whether other, non-payers who allegedly “cause” a Form 1099 to be filed, can also be sued under 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a), affects liability for attorneys, accountants, corporate employees, and a wide variety of others. The issue has divided courts repeatedly, and the Court of Appeal’s opinion resolves it against petitioners. Nazarayan v. FemtoMetrix, Inc., 331 Cal.Rptr.3d 903, 110 Cal.App.5th 1023 (2025). Petitioners FemtoMetrix, Raphael, and Rubin seek a 30-day extension of time, to and including December 12, 2025, in which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. They reasonably require this time to carefully consider the petition’s filing and to ensure that they have a full opportunity to provide The Honorable Elena Kagan Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court October 30, 2025 Page 3 comments and input to me regarding the current draft petition. I have been delayed in preparing the draft, due to a serious illness in my family. In addition, counsel for both sides have repeatedly discussed settlement of this matter, and they have exchanged multiple email and telephone communications regarding settlement proposals after the California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. I believe that both sides should continue pursuing the settlement discussion, and that further negotiations could resolve this matter in coming weeks. If a settlement were reached, it would be “unnecessary to file a petition for certiorari.” Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice 403 (2013). Settlement negotiations are “generally considered to be a ‘good cause’ for an extension,” including one “up to the maximum time allowable.” Id. We respectfully submit that good cause for a 30-day extension (less than the maximum) exists here. Counsel for respondent, Alfred Shaumyan, was notified via email on October 30, 2025, of this request and asked for his position. He replied by asking why petitioners were supposedly “delay[ing] this case” but did not indicate whether he would oppose this application. For the above reasons, petitioners FemtoMetrix, Raphael, and Rubin request a 30-day extension of time, to and including December 12, 2025, in which to file their petition for writ of certiorari in the above action. Timoth¥ T. Coates Gary