Eschweiler v. United States, 86 C 1451.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86 C 1451.,86 C 1451.
• Citation: 696 F. Supp. 326
• Parties: Andrew ESCHWEILER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

696 F. Supp. 326

Andrew ESCHWEILER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

No. 86 C 1451.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

May 31, 1988.

Donald V. Morano, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty., William Clabault, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., Debra L. Stefanik, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

ORDER

NORGLE, District Judge.

Before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. For the following reasons, the government's motion is granted and the plaintiffs' motion is denied.

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ. P. 56(c). A material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A plaintiff cannot rest on mere allegations of a claim without any significant probative evidence which supports his complaint. Id.; see First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). "One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims and defenses." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Accordingly, the nonmoving party is required to go beyond the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file to designate specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id. 106 S.Ct. at 2553.

There is no factual dispute as to the following: 1) the notice of deficiency for the 1984 tax year was mailed to plaintiff's "last known address"; 2) plaintiff's "last known address" for purposes of sending the notice of deficiency for the 1983 tax year was 2626 North Lakeview, the address to which it was sent; and 3) agent Plekavic did not have "an exact address" for plaintiff when he recommended a jeopardy assessment for 1983. Based on these and the other uncontested facts contained in the parties' submissions, the court finds: 1) the government is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether the notice of deficiency for the 1984 tax year was sent to plaintiffs' "last known address"; and 2) the government knew that 2626 Lakeview might not be correct and, therefore, was required to...