GOOD et al v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
Filing
22
OPINION/ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 16) IS GRANTED ON THE MERITS; THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED; THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NO. 17) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; THE UNITED STATES' ORAL MOTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION IS DENIED AS MOOT; THE UNITED STATES' ORAL MOTION FOR IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 12/30/14. 12/30/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE', UNREPS AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY P. GOOD and
MARY A. GOOD, husband and wife,
CIVIL ACTION N0.14-755
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
HENRY SLAUGHTER, DEANN
BENDER, B. CLARK, LAWRENCE R.
COFFIN, and MAUREEN GREEN,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2014, after considering the motion to dismiss
the amended complaint filed by the defendant, the United States of America (Doc. No. 16), the
motion for sanctions filed by the prose plaintiffs, Jeffrey P. Good and Mary A. Good (Doc. No.
17), the response in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiffs (Doc. No. 18), the
amended complaint (Doc. No. 14), and the original complaint (Doc. No. 1) to the extent it is
incorporated into the amended complaint or the plaintiffs' arguments in opposition to the motion
to dismiss; and
THE COURT HAVING held oral argument on the aforementioned motions on
November 20, 2014, at which time the plaintiffs unfortunately did not appear; and the court
having considered the oral motions raised by United States at the time of oral argument in which
it moved to have the court (1) dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, and (2) impose monetary
sanctions against the plaintiffs for their conduct in this case; accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.
The motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED on the merits;
2.
The amended complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to the motion and, to the extent
necessary, pursuant to the court's sua sponte power under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2);
3.
The plaintiffs' motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as follows:
a.
The motion, insofar as the plaintiffs seek to ensure that their response in
opposition to the motion to dismiss is considered timely filed, is GRANTED; 1 and
b.
4.
In all other respects, the motion is DENIED;
The United States' oral motion in the nature of a motion to dismiss this action for
lack of prosecution is DENIED AS MOOT because of the court's disposition of the motion to
dismiss;
5.
The United States' oral motion for imposition of monetary sanctions is DENIED;
6.
The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.
and
a
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
1
The court considered the response in ruling on the motion to dismiss.
2
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?