-9-
On November 22, 1995, we issued an order denying
petitioner's motions (1) and (3), to strike respondent's motion
for sanctions and to strike respondent's motion to dismiss for
lack of prosecution. These motions of petitioner were clearly
frivolous and groundless, being based upon respondent's having
given petitioner copies of the motions bearing stamped
signatures, although respondent had filed signed originals with
the Court, in compliance with Rule 23(a)(3).
On December 26, 1995, this Court filed Respondent's Response
to Petitioner's Motion to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Prosecution, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Motion to
Deny Respondent's Request for Sanctions.
There thus remain for disposition the following matters: (1)
respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute and
petitioner's deemed motion for summary judgment, and (2)
respondent's motion for a penalty under section 6673.
Discussion
Issue 1. Dismissal v. Summary Judgment
This Court, like every court, has the inherent power, in the
exercise of its discretion, to dismiss a case for want of
prosecution. Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-632
(1962) (failure of counsel with history of dilatory conduct of
case to appear at pretrial conference); Steyr-Daimler-Puch of
America Corp. v. Pappas, 852 F.2d 132, 134 (4th Cir. 1988)
(failure to obey numerous court orders); Ducommun v.
Commissioner, 732 F.2d 752, 754 (10th Cir. 1983), affg. Orders of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011