Cohen v. U.S.A, 08-5088
| Decision Date | 11 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-5088,No. 08-5174,No. 08-5093,08-5088,08-5093,08-5174 |
| Parties | Neiland COHEN, Appellant V. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Michael A. Bowen, Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, WI, Marc B. Dorfman Foley & Lardner, LLP, Henry David Levine, Levine, Blaszak, Block & Boothby LLP, Washington, DC, Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore, Chevy Chase, MD, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ellen Page Delsole, R. Craig Lawrence, Teresa E. McLaughlin, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Escquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Jeffrey Allen Taylor, Ernst & Young, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG, HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, GARLAND, BROWN, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of appellee's petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is
ORDERED that the petition be granted. The case will be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the court's August 7, 2009 judgment reversing in part and remanding the cases for further proceedings be vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 29 2010. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties file 20 paper copies each of the briefs and the appendix, in accordance with the following schedule:
Brief for Appellants June 25, 2010
Appendix June 25, 2010
Brief for Appellee July 26, 2010
The briefs are to be limited to the following issues:
(1) Whether the Administrative Procedure Act claims of the plaintiffs are barred at this time under 28 U.S.C § 2201(a) or 2(5 U.S.C. § 7421(a);
(2) Should D.C. Circuit precedent interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act as "coterminous" be overruled?
(3) If the Anti-Injunction Act or the Declaratory Judgment Act bars the court from hearing plaintiffs' APA claims, may plaintiffs still challenge IRS Notice 2006-50 in a refund suit under 26 U.S.C. § 7422?
(4) Does APA section 702 waive sovereign immunity for plaintiffs' APA claims?
Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of argument, the court will grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mann Constr., Inc. v. United States
-
Long-Distance Tel. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax Refund Litigation-Mdl 1798 v. United States
... ... 1:07–mc–00014). Michael A. Bowen argued the cause for appellants Neiland Cohen, et al. Benjamin F. Johns argued the cause for appellants Oscar Gurrola, et al. With them on the ... ...
- Mann Constr., Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv.
-
Texas v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
...matter.’ ” (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency , 290 F.3d 377, 383 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ), vacated in part on other grounds , 599 F.3d 652 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ); see also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 195 L.Ed.2d 77 (2016) (......