United States v. Mooney
| Decision Date | 28 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Court File No. 16-cv-2547 (SRN/LIB) |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. William J. Mooney, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Defendants William J. Mooney and Joni. T. Mooney's (hereinafter collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate Judgment, [Docket No. 157], and upon referral from the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson. (Order of Referral [Docket No. 159]). The Court took Defendants' Motion under advisement on the written submissions of the parties. (Order [Docket No. 165]).
On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff the United States of America initiated the present action by filing its Complaint. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]). Plaintiff's Complaint sought to "reduce federal tax and penalty assessments to judgment and enforce federal tax liens on property located in this district." (Id.).
The facts underlying the present case have been set forth by this Court many times, and those facts will not be repeated here. (See, e.g., Orders [Docket Nos. 36, 47, 78]; Report and Recommendations [Docket Nos. 74, 112]). The facts are recounted herein only to the extent necessary for the present motion.
On May 15, 2018, Judge Nelson issued an Order, [Docket No. 150], adopting the Report and Recommendation of the undersigned, and she granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. In so doing, Judge Nelson ordered that judgment be entered against Defendant William J. Mooney in the amount of $101,262.91; that judgement be entered against Defendant Joni T. Mooney in the amount of $67,870.92; that the United States' tax liens are attached to the real property at issue in the present case; that the United States is authorized to enforce its tax liens against the real property at issue in the present case; that the United States is authorized to sell the real property at issue in the present case subject to further Order of this Court; that Defendant Harbor Holdings has no property interest in the real property at issue in the present case; and that the proceeds of the sale of the real property at issue in the present case shall be distributed to the United States to be applied to William J. Mooney's and Joni T. Mooney's outstanding federal tax liability. (Id. at 14-16).
On June 13, 2018, Defendants' filed the present Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate Judgment. [Docket No. 157]. Although Defendants do not cite to any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure upon which they base their present post-judgment Motion, construing their pro se pleading liberally, Defendants appear to be bringing their present Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b).
A Rule 60(b) motion serves to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Rule "provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances." United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805,806 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curium). A District Court is provided broad discretion in deciding whether relief should be granted in a Rule 60(b) motion. See, Sellers v. Mineta, 350 F.3d 706, 716 (8th Cir. 2003).
In the present case, Defendants have not demonstrated any circumstances, much less exceptions circumstances, which would warrant relief under Rule 60(b). Defendants make no claim that there has been any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect on the part of any party in the present case. (See, Defs.' Mot. [Docket No. 157]). Nor have Defendants proffered any newly discovered evidence in support of their present Motion. (Id.). Moreover, Defendants fail to raise any meritorious claims of fraud in support of their present Motion. (Id.). Similarly, the judgment in the present case is not void, nor is there any evidence that the judgment in the present case has been satisfied, released, or discharged. The Court also expressly finds that there are no "other reasons that justifies relief" in the present case.
Rather than arguing anything new in support of any of the enumerated reasons listed Rule 60(b), Defendants merely repeat previous failed arguments they have already presented to the Court. (See, Defs.' Mot. [Docket No. 157]). Defendants again attempt to argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the present case. The Court has already considered all of these arguments again presented here by Defendants. As previously discussed several times in the present case, it is an unassailable fact that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the present case. (Order, [Docket No. 78], at 7). As noted above, in support of the present Motion, Defendants simply repeat their previously offered meaningless and routinely and properly rejected tax protestor arguments which the Court has already found to be without merit. The Court need not again address here these arguments as they have been previously rejected by this Court, and that rejection is now the law of the case and therefore controls. See, Sprint Commc'nsCo. L.P. v. Lozier, 860 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir. 2017) .
Indeed, every Court to have ever considered any of the other arguments raised here again by Defendants has soundly rejected those arguments too. The Court briefly recounts Defendants' arguments and their previous rejections.
In addition to their lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguments, the Defendants also merely repeat their argument that "Counsel for the United States of America" has not appeared in the present case, and therefore, the present case must be dismissed. However, as Defendants have been previously informed, Michael R. Pahl is counsel for the Plaintiff, the United States of America, in the present case. (Order, [Docket No. 143], at 5; see, Report and Recommendation, [Docket No....
To continue reading
Request your trial