Opinion
11457-21L
04-05-2022
PAMELA WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Joseph W. Nega, Judge
This case is currently calendared for trial for the session of the Court scheduled to commence May 2, 2022 in San Diego, California. In a Standing Pretrial Order served January 5, 2022, the Court informed the parties that any motions for summary judgment must be filed no later than 60 days before the first day of the trial session. On March 4, 2022, respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Motion for Summary Judgment (respondent's motion) and a lodged a Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaration of Denise Smith in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 7, 2022, respondent lodged a First Supplement of Denise Smith in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
Unless otherwise indicated all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Rule 121(a) provides that either party may move for summary adjudication in the moving party's favor upon all or any part of the legal issues in controversy. Such motion must be filed "within such time as not to delay the trial, and in any event no later than 60 days before the first day of the Court's session at which the case is calendared for trial, unless otherwise permitted by the Court." Rule 25(c) provides that the Court has discretion to extend or shorten any period otherwise provided for in the Rules. Pursuant to Rule 121(a) and the Court's Standing Pretrial Order served January 25, 2022, respondent was required to file any motion for summary judgment no later than March 3, 2022.
In respondent's motion, respondent states that the filing of his Motion for Summary Judgment was delayed due to clerical error. Respondent seeks the Court's leave to file his Motion for Summary Judgment a day late and represents that such leave would not prejudice petitioner, on the basis that respondent's counsel left petitioner a voicemail message on March 2, 2022, informing her that he would be filing the Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent represents that he has been unable to speak with petitioner and thus cannot ascertain petitioner's position as to the granting of respondent's motion. We will not exercise our discretion to excuse respondent's untimely filing. We expect diligence from respondent in complying with this Court's Rules and established deadlines. See Estate of Quirk v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 520, 521 (1973). Accordingly, we will deny respondent's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 4, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaration of Denise Smith in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, both filed March 4, 2022, are hereby deemed stricken from the record. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's First Supplement of Denise Smith in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 7, 2022, is hereby deemed stricken from the record.