GOOD et al v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, No. 5:2014cv00755 - Document 22 (E.D. Pa. 2014)
Court Description: 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, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GOOD et al v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al Doc. 22 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; Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
