DUANE LARSON V. USA, No. 12-56694 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUANE W. LARSON; PAMELA A. LARSON, No. 12-56694 D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01946-JLS-RNB Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through the Administrative Agencies of the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Duane W. and Pamela A. Larson appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action to recover tax refunds for tax years 1978-1980. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Larsons’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Larsons litigated their tax liability for 19781980 in the Court of Federal Claims, which issued a final judgment on the merits in 2009. See Larson v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 363 (Fed. Cl. 2009), aff’d, 376 Fed. App’x 26 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598 (1948) (“[I]f a claim of liability or non-liability relating to a particular tax year is litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year.”); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the three elements of res judicata). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because the Larsons failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 12-56694

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.