- 11 -
the petitioner. The Court may, for similar reasons,
decide against any party any issue as to which such
party has the burden of proof, and such decision shall
be treated as a dismissal for purposes of paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this Rule.
* * * * * * * *
[Rule 149](a) Attendance at Trials: The unexcused
absence of a party or a party's counsel when a case is
called for trial will not be ground for delay. The
case may be dismissed for failure properly to prose-
cute, or the trial may proceed and the case be regarded
as submitted on the part of the absent party or
parties.
We find that petitioner's failure to cooperate with
respondent during the pretrial period made it impossible for
respondent to conduct negotiations, exchange information, and
stipulate mutually agreeable facts as required by Rule 91(c).
The standing pretrial order has not been complied with by
petitioner, nor have the mandates of the Court in Branerton Corp.
v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 691 (1974). Thus, in light of peti-
tioner's conduct in this proceeding and her failure to appear
when the case was called for trial, we conclude that dismissal is
appropriate. Accordingly, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Prosecution as to petitioner Diana C. Raquet will be
granted.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order will be
issued granting respondent's motion
to dismiss, and decision will be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011