Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль

Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / William A. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant., United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division., 249 F.Supp.2d 937, No. 01-2877-G/BRE., January 16, 2003

William A. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant., United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division., 249 F.Supp.2d 937, No. 01-2877-G/BRE., January 16, 2003


William A. CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

249 F.Supp.2d 937

No. 01-2877-G/BRE.

January 16, 2003.

William A. Carroll, Memphis, TN, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Jason S. Zarin, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Jus╜tice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Defendant.



Plaintiff, William Carroll, filed a com╜plaint seeking to invalidate the determina╜tion by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to proceed with collection by levy on the penalty imposed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. ╖ 6702(a). On May 29, 2002, the court granted the defendant's motion for sum╜mary judgment after determining that the IRS complied with all applicable laws and procedures and. did not abuse its discre╜tion. The court further determined that based upon the frivolous nature of plain╜tiffs arguments, plaintiff maintained this action in bad faith. The court found the United States was entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee and related ex╜penses under 28 U.S.C. ╖ 2412(a) and the bad-faith exception to the American rule, generally denying such recovery in the absence of a contractual or statutory provi╜sion. Counsel for the defendant was di╜rected to file his declaration, itemizing the number of hours he expended in repre╜senting his client in this proceeding, the approximate hourly rate at which the Unit╜ed States has compensated (or will com╜pensate) him for such representation, and any expenses incurred in such representa╜tion. Plaintiff was directed to respond to the declaration within five days after such filing. The court delayed entering its final judgment until it determinated the amount of allowable attorney's fees and expenses.

On June 10, 2002, counsel for the defen╜dant filed his accounting of costs and fees in the amount of $2425.57. On June 14, 2002, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsid╜eration which does not address the court's decision to award fees and costs, but rath╜er, expresses plaintiff's disagreement with the court's order granting summary judg╜ment. On June 19, 2002, the defendant filed its opposition to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

Contrary to plaintiff's allegations and argument, the Court previously con╜sidered the underlying substantive issues of his claims and found them to be merit╜less. The motion does not contain any basis for the court to alter its original determination that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims. Plaintiff alleges no law or facts justifying reconsid╜eration and summary judgment was prop╜erly entered for the defendant. Accord╜ingly, plaintiff's motion is denied.

Furthermore, despite the court's order directing plaintiff to file a response to defendant's declaration and itemization of costs, plaintiff has stated no objection to the defendant's accounting. Thus, the court finds that the amount requested, $2425.57, to be reasonable and adequately supported by affidavit. Plaintiff continues to file pleadings, such as the instant motion, comprised of frivolous and groundless positions. Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this case and was not proceeding in forma pauperis . Plaintiff has failed to demon╜strate that the award of fees and costs against him will cause any financial hard╜ship. Accordingly, the plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant's costs and fees in the amount of $2425.57.

The clerk is directed to prepare and enter its judgment in accordance with this order. The clerk shall not accept any other documents other than a notice of appeal for filing in this action. Any docu╜ments other than a notice of appeal sub╜mitted in this case shall be returned to the plaintiff.


Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  


Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.