JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 05/23/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) on or before June 22, 2011, any party may file a dispositive motion and supporting brief; 2) on or before July 22, 2011, any party oppos ing such a dispositive motion shall file a response; and 3) on or before August 5, 2011, any party that filed such a dispositive motion may file a reply to any such response. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove this case from the July 2011 Master Trial Calendar and shall place the case on a future Master Trial Calendar that affords the Court an adequate opportunity to consider any dispositive motion filed pursuant to the new briefing schedule.(Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
VICTORIA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Counterclaim
Plaintiff, and ThirdParty Plaintiff,
v.
SAMMY E. JOHNSON, J. HUNTER
SCHOFIELD, and MATTHEW SCHOFIELD,
Third-Party Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:09CV957
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court pursuant to a Status Report
from the United States (Docket Entry 37) filed pursuant to a prior
Order of the Court (Docket Entry 28), which Status Report the Court
then converted into a motion requesting the establishment of a
schedule for dispositive motions and of a new trial date (Docket
Entry 38).
After receiving further briefing from the parties
regarding the matter (Docket Entries 40, 41), the Court finds good
cause to enter a briefing schedule for dispositive motions and to
defer any trial of this matter until after the Court has an
opportunity to consider any such dispositive motions.
BACKGROUND
The instant litigation commenced when Victoria Johnson filed
a Complaint for wrongful levy of taxes against the United States.
(Docket
Entry
1.)
The
United
States
answered,
asserted
a
Counterclaim against Victoria Johnson, and lodged a Third-party
Complaint against Sammy E. Johnson.
(Docket Entry 14.)1
After
Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson answered the Counterclaim and Thirdparty Complaint (Docket Entry 17), the Court adopted the parties’
Joint Rule 26(f) Report that provided, inter alia, for the close of
discovery by November 1, 2010.
Entry 19).)2
(Docket Entry 20 (adopting Docket
The Clerk then set the case for trial during the
Court’s July 2011 Master Calendar Term.
(Docket Entries 21, 22.)
Before discovery ended, the United States moved to amend their
Counterclaim and Third-party Complaint to add Matthew and J. Hunter
Schofield as third-party defendants.
(Docket Entry 23.)3
The
Court granted said Motion and directed the United States to make
service of the amended pleading on Matthew and J. Hunter Schofield.
(Docket Entry 28 at 7.)
In addition, the Court ordered that, upon
1
According to the United States, “Sammy E. Johnson is indebted to the
United States for in excess of $480,000 with respect to his 2006 income taxes”
and “[h]is transfer of [certain] proceeds . . . to his wife, Victoria Johnson,
was fraudulent to the United States.”
(Docket Entry 23-1 at 1-2.)
2
Under the Court’s Local Rules, based on that deadline for the close of
discovery, dispositive motions would have been due on December 1, 2010. See
M.D.N.C. R. 56.1(b).
3
The United States alleges that Matthew and J. Hunter Schofield received
subsequent transfers from Victoria Johnson that the United States may recover to
satisfy Sammy E. Johnson’s tax liability. (See Docket Entry 23-1 at 2.)
-2-
the perfection of service and the filing of responsive pleadings by
the new parties, all parties:
1) must consult about whether the
discovery period should be re-opened or other case management
deadlines should be adjusted; and 2) must file a status report with
the Court identifying any areas of agreement or dispute between the
parties regarding such matters.
(Id.)
Matthew and J. Hunter Schofield waived service and (after
obtaining extensions of time) answered.
34-36.)
(Docket Entries 30, 31,
The United States thereafter filed a Status Report in
which it reported that all parties except J. Hunter Schofield
responded to its efforts to confer as the Court directed and agreed
that “the discovery period does not need to be re-opened.” (Docket
Entry 37 at 2.) The Status Report further declared that the United
States and Matthew Schofield agreed that the Court should set a
schedule for filing dispositive motions, but that Victoria and
Sammy E. Johnson “do not see a need for the parties to file such
motions.” (Id.) Finally, the United States requested that, if the
Court sets a schedule for dispositive motions, the Court remove the
case from its current trial setting “to permit the Court to
consider the parties’ motions [in advance of any trial].”
(Id.)
The Court then entered an Order treating said Status Report as
a motion requesting the establishment of a schedule for dispositive
motions and of a new trial date consistent with that schedule.
(Docket Entry 38.)
In that Order, the Court gave Victoria and
-3-
Sammy E. Johnson and J. Hunter Schofield an opportunity to respond
to the foregoing request by the United States and permitted a reply
to any such response.
(See id. at 3.)
Consistent with the Court’s
foregoing Order, Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson filed a memorandum
opposing a briefing schedule (and related continuance of the trial)
and the United States replied.
(Docket Entries 40, 41.)4
DISCUSSION
As grounds for their opposition to the request by the United
States, Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson first contended that the
United States should have filed a dispositive motion earlier. (See
Docket Entry 40 at 2.)
The Court finds this argument unpersuasive
because the prior Order granting the request by the United States
to amend its pleadings to add Matthew and J. Hunter Schofield as
third-party defendants recognized that the addition of parties
interrupted the existing case-management schedule.
Entry 28 at 7.)
(See Docket
More specifically, because of the provisions of
that Order, at the time of the original deadline for filing
dispositive motions (i.e., December 1, 2010), the United States
knew that the Court contemplated reopening discovery after service
upon
and
responsive
filings
by
the
new
parties.
(See
id.)
Accordingly, the United States acted prudently in waiting to file
4
In said Memorandum, Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson represented that
Matthew Schofield had withdrawn his consent to the establishment of a dispositive
motion briefing schedule and related alteration of the trial date. (Docket Entry
40 at 1.) The United States subsequently confirmed that fact. (Docket Entry 41
at 3 n.4.) J. Hunter Schofield did not file a responsive memorandum. (See
Docket Entries dated May 5, 2011, to the present.)
-4-
any dispositive motion until after all parties had been heard about
the need to re-open discovery.5
Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson next asserted that briefing on
dispositive motions likely would not serve any purpose because of
a ruling rendered in a related bankruptcy proceeding.
Entry 40 at 2.)
id.)
(See Docket
They provided no details about said ruling.
(See
In its Reply, the United States attached a copy of the
written order from the bankruptcy case (which did not set out the
factual or legal basis for the ruling, but instead referred
generally to matters discussed during a hearing). (Docket Entry 41
at Ex. A.) The United States argued that “[t]he Bankruptcy Court’s
denial of the government’s summary judgment motion . . . may have
been based on factual issues particular to the [bankruptcy] case.”
(Id. at 3.) The United States outlined the potentially distinctive
factual issues at play in the bankruptcy case and also cited an
intervening court decision from another district that it contends
might impact the Court’s analysis of the relevant legal issues.
(See id. at 3-4.)
Under these circumstances, the Court cannot
conclude that the ruling in the related bankruptcy case rendered
futile any dispositive motion by the United States in this case.
5
Indeed, as the United States pointed out in its Reply (see Docket Entry
41 at 3), as of December 1, 2010, the United States could not have filed a
dispositive motion as to its claims against Matthew and J. Hunter Schofield and
thus, if the Court refused to set a new schedule for such motions, it would deny
the United States any opportunity to obtain a ruling on such a motion.
-5-
Finally, Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson opposed the instant
request by the United States due to the alleged burdensomeness of
responding to dispositive motions in this case, particularly in
light of their obligation to litigate parallel issues in the
related bankruptcy case and of Victoria Johnson’s health.
Docket
Entry
40
at
2-3.)
Victoria
Johnson
instigated
(See
the
litigation in this Court and apparently she and Sammy E. Johnson
played a role in bringing the related bankruptcy case and adversary
proceeding raising overlapping issues. (See Docket Entry 41 at 4.)
Under these circumstances, the Court declines to preclude the
United States from filing a dispositive motion because of any
alleged burden that responding thereto might impose upon Victoria
and Sammy E. Johnson, particularly given that – if, as Victoria and
Sammy E. Johnson contend, the parties previously have briefed
relevant matters in the related bankruptcy case – the formulation
of a response to a dispositive motion by the United States should
not require substantial additional time or expense.6
CONCLUSION
The interruption of the case-management schedule occasioned by
the addition of new parties constitutes good cause to establish a
new briefing schedule for dispositive motions.
6
The arguments of
The Court, of course, will entertain any reasonable request for
accommodation as to the briefing schedule that might arise due to Victoria
Johnson’s health issues.
-6-
Victoria and Sammy E. Johnson opposing that course of action lack
sufficient force to require a different result.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1)
on
or
before
June
22,
2011,
any
party
may
file
a
dispositive motion and supporting brief;
2) on or before July 22, 2011, any party opposing such a
dispositive motion shall file a response; and
3) on or before August 5, 2011, any party that filed such a
dispositive motion may file a reply to any such response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove this case
from the July 2011 Master Trial Calendar and shall place the case
on a future Master Trial Calendar that affords the Court an
adequate opportunity to consider any dispositive motion filed
pursuant to the new briefing schedule.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
May 23, 2011
-7-
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?