Double D Farm Corp. v. United States of America

Filing 17

Order. The Court RE-OPENS this case for the limited purposes of clarifying the 5/23/2008 Order and issuing a more detailed Judgment Entry dismissing the case. Respondent United States' Motion to modify (Related Doc # 15 ) is mooted and termed. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 7/11/2008.(H,CM)

Double D Farm Corp. v. United States of America

Doc. 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DOUBLE D FARM CORP., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

: : : : : : : : :

Case No. 1:07 CV 3577

JUDGE KATHLEEN O'MALLEY

ORDER

This case arises on Respondent United States of America's ("the United States") Motion to Modify and Correct Order of Dismissal Entered May 23, 2008 ("Motion to Modify") (ECF Doc. 15). Petitioner Double D Farm Corp. ("Double D") filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Modify on June 13, 2008 (ECF Doc. 16). For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby RE-OPENS this case for the limited purposes of (1) clarifying the Order issued May 23, 2008; and, (2) issuing a more detailed Judgment Entry dismissing this case. The Motion to Modify is mooted and termed accordingly. On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an Order resolving both Double D's motion to quash an Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") administrative third-party summons ("IRS Summons") issued to Double D's accountant, Melvin Rubin ("Rubin"), and the United States' cross-motion to enforce the IRS Summons. (ECF Doc. 13.) The Court's May 23, 2008 Order summarizes the Court's ruling as follows: Accordingly, the Court GRANTS, in part, the United States' Motion to Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons (ECF Doc. 10). Rubin is hereby ORDERED to produce all documents in his possession which are responsive to the Summons, with the exception of documents related to bank records. With respect to bank records responsive to the Summons, in order to obtain copies of bank records in Rubin's possession, the United States is hereby ORDERED to provide Rubin with a list of the responsive bank records in the IRS's possession within seven (7) days of

Dockets.Justia.com

the date of this Order. In response, within seven (7) days of the date of the receipt of the above list from the IRS, Rubin is hereby ORDERED to either: (1) file an affidavit attesting that he has produced all responsive documents that are not duplicates of those listed or (2) simply produce all responsive documents in his possession, including duplicates. In light of this Order enforcing the IRS Administrative Summons, Double D Farm Corp.'s Petition to Quash is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. (ECF Doc. 13 at 17-18.) Although this Order fully resolves the case, the United States Motion to Modify asserts that the Court's Judgment Entry (ECF Doc. 14), which was issued on the same day, failed to grant the appropriate relief to the United States. The Judgment Entry expressly refers to the May 23rd Order (ECF Doc. 13) quoted above, and states, in its entirety: "For the reasons stated in the Court[']s Order of this date, this case is DISMISSED." The United States contends that the Judgment Entry should have expressly re-stated the affirmative relief granted to the United States in the May 23rd Order (ECF Doc. 13), and that this "clerical error [is] susceptible of easy and speedy reversal" pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Doc. 15 at 5.) In response, Double D argues that the error is not "clerical" under Rule 60. (ECF Doc. 16.) The Court finds that re-opening the case to clarify the relief to which the United States is entitled under the May 23rd Orders is appropriate. No prejudice will result given that the Court is not altering its judgment in any way. The Court does not, however, find that it erred in dismissing the case on May 23, 2008. Although the May 23rd Order required further action on the part of Rubin, the Order, to which the May 23rd Judgment Entry expressly referred, expressly denied Double D's motion to quash and granted the United States' motion to enforce the IRS Summons. The Court thus resolved the petition giving rise to the case, as well as all of the pending motions. Further, the Court's jurisdiction to enforce Rubin's compliance with the Court's Order is implied, even after the case is dismissed.

2

CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court hereby RE-OPENS this case for the limited purpose of issuing a more detailed judgment entry describing the relief granted and dismissing the case. The United States' Motion to Modify (ECF Doc. 15) is TERMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2008

s/Kathleen M. O'Malley KATHLEEN McDONALD O'MALLEY U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3