Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 3:08-MC-0103.
October 9, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Petitioners Joseph Pilchesky and Joanne Ricci Pilchesky's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 16.) For the reasons stated below, Petitioners' Motion will be denied.
On April 14, 2008, Petitioners, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a Petition to Quash Third Party Summonses (Doc. 1) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). On July 23, 2007, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 5) with a supporting brief (Doc. 6) arguing that third-parties Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Community Bank, N.A. First Liberty Bank Trust are not found within this judicial district and that this Court is without the subject matter jurisdiction to quash the summonses issued to these two (2) third parties.
Also on July 23, 2007, Respondents filed a Motion to Enforce IRS summons (Doc. 7). In this motion, the Respondents argue that Petitioners have failed to allege the grounds require to quash the summonses issued to four (4) third parties, including NBT Bank, N.A., Wachovia Bank, N.A., Community Bank, N.A. First Liberty Bank Trust, and Citizens Northern Bank. Along with the motion, Respondents submitted the Declaration of Sidney Burnside (Burnside Decl., Doc. 7, Ex. 1.) which details the nature and history of the IRS investigation into Petitioners tax liabilities from 1999 through 2007. Petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs (Doc. 9) in reply to Respondents' motions on August 15, 2008. The Court denied Petitioners' Motion for Extension in an Order signed September 9, 2008. (Doc. 14.) On September 29, 2008, this Court entered an Order, (Doc. 15), denying Petitioners' Petition to Quash Third Party Summons, denying Respondents' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Enforcement of Summons.
The next day, on September 30, 2008, Petitioners filed the Response and Motion currently before the Court. (Doc. 16.) In their Response, Petitioners detail various issues relating to service and filing of documents that culminated in the Court's September 9, 2008 Order denying Petitioners an extension of time to file a response to the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. Following this procedural explanation, the Petitioners offer their Response to the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss along with a Motion to Strike Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. In both their Response and Motion to Strike, Petitioners focus on the physical location of third party record keepers receiving summonses in this matter and argue that this Court holds jurisdiction over these record keepers for purposes of Petitioners' Motion to Quash Third Party Summonses.
In its Memorandum Order of September 29, 2008, (Doc. 15), the Court took judicial notice that branch locations of the third party record keepers named in Respondents' Motion to Dismiss were present within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, determined that these branch offices provided this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioners' Motion to Quash Third Party Summons, and denied the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 5). Accordingly, the result Petitioners seek in the Response and Motion currently before the Court has already been established by the Court's September 29, 2008 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 15).
For this reason, NOW this 9th day of October, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DENIED as moot.