United States of America v. Blunt
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 8/13/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
*
*
v.
*
ROGER R. BLUNT,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-00444-PX
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff United States’ renewed motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 53) and a second motion to withdraw as attorney by counsel for Defendant
Roger R. Blunt. ECF No. 61. The motions are fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See
Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, both motions are GRANTED.
I.
United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment
This case arises from Blunt’s failure to pay income taxes for the 2011, 2012, and 2013
tax years. Initially, the Treasury Department assessed against Blunt $1,182,321.72 in federal
income tax (Form 1040) liabilities, and related penalties and interest (collectively “the
Assessments”). ECF No. 1 ¶ 6. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6303, Treasury notified Blunt of
the Assessments and demanded payment. Id. ¶ 7. Since such time, statutory interest and
penalties continued to accrue. Id. ¶ 9.
On February 16, 2017, the United States initiated this civil enforcement action to reduce
to judgment the Assessments against Blunt, and thereafter moved for summary judgment in its
favor on April 12, 2017. ECF No. 1, 10. On April 17, 2017, the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”) adjusted downward the amount Blunt owed the United States. ECF No. 15-2 ¶¶ 9–10;
ECF Nos. 12, 12-1, 15. A revenue officer with the IRS found that after accounting for such
adjustments, as well as penalties and interest, Blunt owed the United States $1,082,849.69. ECF
No. 15-2 ¶¶ 14–10. The United States consequently updated the amount it demanded from Blunt
in this enforcement action. ECF No. 15 at 5.
Blunt objected and sought discovery on the proper amounts owed. The Court
accordingly denied the United States’ summary judgment motion without prejudice and allowed
Blunt’s requested discovery to proceed. ECF Nos. 22, 23. The Court subsequently extended
discovery deadlines on multiple occasions well into 2019, all to accommodate Blunt. ECF Nos.
40, 43, 44, 48.
On June 6, 2019, the United States renewed its motion for summary judgment, requesting
that the Court reduce to judgment the Assessment of $1,082,849.69. ECF No. 53. Blunt
responded that he is “unable to provide this Court with any fresh evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact to oppose Plaintiff’s renewed motion for summary judgment.” ECF No.
60.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, finds no genuine disputed issue of material fact, entitling the
movant to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008). “A party opposing
a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.’” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522
(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Blunt concedes that he has not produced any evidence to dispute that he owes
$1,082,849.69 in unpaid taxes, calculated through May 22, 2017. ECF No. 60. The United
2
States, by contrast, submits sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Blunt remains indebted to the
United States in that amount. ECF Nos. 7-3, 7-4, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4. Thus, viewing the evidence
most favorably to Blunt, summary judgment is granted in the United States’ favor. The Court
imposes judgment in the amount of $1,082,849.69 in unpaid taxes, calculated through May 22,
2017, plus all statutory interest, penalties, and costs, less credits and payments, if any, that
accrued and will continue to accrue thereafter pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §§ 6601, 6621(a)(2) and 26
C.F.R. 301.6621-1, and 28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) until the balance is paid in full.
III.
Renewed Motion to Withdraw
Counsel for Blunt initially moved to withdraw from representation prior to responding to
the United Sates’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 54. The Court denied the motion,
finding that withdrawal during the pendency of renewed summary judgment motion risked unfair
delay and disruption of the case already significantly delayed at Blunt’s request. The Court
made clear, however, that counsel would be free to renew his motion once United States’
summary judgment motion is resolved.
Counsel has renewed his motion. ECF No. 61. Because the Court grants summary
judgment in the Government’s favor, thus concluding the case on its merits, the Court finds
counsel’s withdrawal no longer problematic. The Court, therefore, grants counsel’s renewed
motion.
3
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
53) and grants the motion to withdraw as attorney (ECF No. 61). A separate order follows.
8/13/2019
Date
/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?