Opinion
CV-02-BE-0692-S
October 7, 2003
ORDER
This case comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16). After reviewing the relevant case law and the parties' briefs, this court hereby DENIES both motions for the reasons briefly discussed below.
When a district court reviews a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, it must determine two things: (1) whether any genuine issues of material fact exist; and, if not, (2) whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). To succeed, the moving party bears the burden of establishing both prongs of the summary judgment test. The nonmoving party may defeat the motion for summary judgment by establishing either genuine issues of material fact or that the movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In this case, neither moving party has satisfied the first element of this summary judgment standard. There is a genuine issue of material fact in this case: whether the plaintiff received adequate notice of his tax deficiency from the Internal Revenue Service. This fact is material because without providing proper notice, the defendant cannot lawfully place a lien on the plaintiff's property. The court cannot decide this case as a matter of law when such an important factual determination is disputed. Accordingly, both motions are due to be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.