United States of America v. Thornton

Filing 25

ORDER denying (22) Motion to Reconsider; denying (22) Motion to Vacate Order; denying (23) Motion in case 0:13-mc-00086-SRN-TNL; denying (26) Motion; denying (25) Motion to Reconsider; denying (25) Motion to Vacate Order in case 0:13-mc-00087-SRN-TNL (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 08/28/2014. Associated Cases: 0:13-mc-00086-SRN-TNL, 0:13-mc-00087-SRN-TNL(SMD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, Case No. 13-mc-86 (SRN/TNL) Petitioner, v. ORDER Crisandra J. Thornton, Respondent. D. Gerald Wilhelm, Assistant United States Attorney, 600 United States Courthouse, 300 Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Petitioner; and Crisandra J. Thornton, 4128 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, Pro Se. United States of America, Case No. 13-mc-87 (SRN/TNL) Petitioner, v. ORDER John K. Thornton, Respondent. D. Gerald Wilhelm, Assistant United States Attorney, 600 United States Courthouse, 300 Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Petitioner; and John K. Thornton, 4128 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, Pro Se. ________________________________________________________________________ SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court upon the Respondents’ Motions to Reconsider and Vacate Order [Doc. No. 22 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 25 in File No. 13-mc-87], Respondents’ Answers and Requests for an Adversarial Hearing [Doc. No. 23 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 26 in File No. 13-mc-87] and Respondents’ Requests for a Hearing on their Motions to Reconsider [Doc. No. 24 in File No. 13-mc-86, and Doc. No. 27 in File No. 13-mc-87]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Respondents’ Motions to Reconsider and Vacate Order, Respondents’ Requests for a Hearing on their Motions to Reconsider, and also denies the Requests for an Adversarial Hearing. I. BACKGROUND On April 9, 2014, Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 17 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 21 in File No. 13-mc-87] denying the Respondents’ motions to dismiss these actions to enforce administrative summonses issued by the Internal Revenue Service. The Report and Recommendation also recommended that the Internal Revenue Service’s summonses be enforced. Respondents timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, which were duly considered, but rejected by this Court in an order dated August 1, 2014 [Doc. No. 19 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 23 in File No. 13-mc-87]. That Order denied Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss, enforced Petitioner’s Internal Revenue Summonses, and closed the files on this matter. Respondents now request reconsideration of that Order. II. DISCUSSION Motions for reconsideration are expressly disfavored by the Court. “Motions to reconsider are prohibited except by express permission of the Court, which will be granted only upon a showing of compelling circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(h). Instead, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) only “authorizes relief based on certain enumerated circumstances (for example, fraud, 2 changed conditions, and the like.)” Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir.1999). As the Eighth Circuit has noted, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration.” Id., at 990. A Rule 60(b) motion, brought as a “motion for reconsideration,” “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits,” even where the movant reargues the merits “somewhat more fully.” Id., at 989-90. After reviewing Respondents’ motions and requests, which essentially reargue the merits of their position and do not present evidence of any of the factors listed in Rule 60(b), the Court denies the requests for reconsideration. The requests for oral argument on the Requests for Reconsideration are therefore denied as moot. Additionally, because the Order specifically enforced the IRS Summonses, effectively closing the files on this matter, the Court denies Petitioners’ Requests for an Evidentiary Hearing as moot. Accordingly, based on the foregoing and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondents’ Motions to Reconsider and Vacate Order [Doc. No. 22 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 25 in File No. 13-mc-87] are DENIED; 2. Respondents’ Requests for an Adversarial Hearing [Doc. No. 23 in File No. 13mc-86 and Doc. No. 26 in File No. 13-mc-87] are DENIED as moot; and 3 3. Respondents’ Requests for a Hearing on Motions to Reconsider [Doc. No. 24 in File No. 13-mc-86 and Doc. No. 27 in File No. 13-mc-87] are DENIED as moot. Dated: August 28, 2014 s/Susan Richard Nelson SUSAN RICHARD NELSON 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?