United States of America v. Harrington et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the answers of Defendants Cherlynn Harrington and Linda McClendon (Doc. Nos. 3 and 4 ) are STRICKEN.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States will file any motions for default judgment on or before November 2, 2018. Response to Court due by 11/2/2018.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/4/18. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHERLYNN HARRINGTON,
LINDA MCCLENDON,
GOODLINK, LLC D/B/A GOODLINK TAX
SERVICES, and GOODLINK, INC. D/B/A
GOODLINK TAX SERVICES
· Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:18-cv-00460-JAR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
On October 3, 2018, this matter came before the Court for a hearing on an Order to Show
Cause directing Defendants Cherlynn Harrington and Linda McClendon (collectively, ''the
individual Defendants") to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their willful
disobedience of a Court Order. The individual Defendants, proceeding pro se, failed to appear at
the hearing, and the United States appeared through counsel by telephone. For the reasons set
forth below and those articulated on the record, the Court will, under its inherent authority, strike
the individual Defendants' answers (Doc. Nos. 3 and 4) as a sanction for their willful disobedience
of Court Orders.

BACKGROUND
The United States filed this action on March 27, 2018, seeking to permanently enjoin
Defendants Cherlynn Harrington, Linda McClendon, Goodlink, LLC d/b/a Goodlink Tax
Services, and Goodlink, Inc. d/b/a Goodlink Tax Services, from, inter alia, preparing federal tax
returns for others and owning, operating, or managing a tax return-preparation company. (Doc.
No. 1). The United States claims that the individual Defendants began preparing tax returns in

2001 under the business name Goodlink. The United States also claims that the individual
Defendants engaged in the preparation of false federal income tax returns to generate bogus
refunds and charged "exorbitant" fees, thereby maximizing profits at the expense of the United
States Treasury. The individual Defendants prepared over 1,300 tax returns between 2009 and
2017, the vast majority of which requested a refund.
On April 20, 2018, the individual Defendants each filed nearly identical papers titled
"Complaint for Eviction."

(Doc. Nos. 3 and 4).

Because the individual Defendants are

proceeding pro se, the ,Court liberally construed the filings as answers generally denying the
complaint. The Court then set the case for a scheduling conference on September 5, 2018, in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 11). The Court expressly
required the parties to appear in person or through counsel and directed the parties to submit aj oint
proposed scheduling plan in advance of the hearing. On August 21, 2018, the United States
represented that it had sent the individual Defendants a copy of its draft proposed schedule, which
they returned with handwritten notations on each page stating: "I DON'T ACCEPT THIS OFFER
OF CONTRACT AND I DON'T CONSENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS." (Doc. Nos. 12-1
and 12-2).
On August 27, 2018, the individual Defendants sent letters to the Court demanding a
complete bookkeeping and accounting on the case and requesting a certification of their right of
subrogation in order to "set off and settle the account." (Doc. Nos. 13 and 14). They also filed
identical papers titled "Disclaimer Notice" and an affidavit questionnaire directed at counsel for
the United States. (Doc. Nos. 15 and 16).
On September 5, 2018, the Court held a scheduling conference. The United States
appeared through counsel, but the individual Defendants failed to appear. The Court continued
2

the hearing until October 3, 2018, and ordered the individual Defendants to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed against them for their failure to appear at the hearing. Plaintiffs
failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order by the deadline, and they failed to appear at the
October 5, 2018 sanctions hearing.
DISCUSSION

Courts possess the inherent power to assess sanctions for a party's willful disobedience of a
court order or when a party has acted in bad faith. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc '.Y,
421 U.S. 240, 258-59 (1975); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991); Greiner v. City
of Champlin, 152 F .3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court has wide discretion to fashion an

appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process. Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45.
Sanctions may include striking an answer, which is one of the most severe sanctions available to a
Court by virtue of its inherent power. Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255, 1261 (8th Cir. 1993).
Here, the Court directed the parties to appear at the September 5, 2018 scheduling
conference in person or through counsel.

The individual Defendants failed to appear, in

contravention of a direct Court Order. The Court then continued the hearing and directed the
individual Defendants to appear on October 3, 2018. Again, the individual Defendants failed to
appear.
The individual Defendants have demonstrated through their filings that they are aware of
this litigation and the filings made in the case, yet they failed to appear at two hearings at which the
Court required their presence. These failures constitute willful violations of the Court's Orders,
and the Court will impose sanctions.
The Court considered a wide variety of sanctions available to it under its inherent authority,
including monetary sanctions, attorneys' fees, and striking of pleadings. After due consideration
3

of the circumstances of this case and the conduct of the individual Defendants, the Court will strike
the individual Defendants' answers as a sanction for their willful violation of this Court's orders.
The Court recognizes that this is a severe sanction; however, based on their conduct in this case, it
is apparent that the individual Defendants are unlikely to obey the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures or future orders of this Court. Thus, the Court concludes that striking the individual
Defendants' answers is the appropriate sanction.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the answers of Defendants Cherlynn Harrington and

Linda McClendon (Doc. Nos. 3 and 4) are STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States will file any motions for default

judgment on or before November 2, 2018.
Dated this 4th day of October, 2018.

'.A. ROSS
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4