-12-
would long ago have granted a motion by respondent to dismiss the
case for failure to state a claim. However, petitioner's
continued refusal to bring forward any evidence to support those
deductions, culminating in his statement at the calendar call
that he was conceding them in the interests of pressing his
section 83 claim on appeal, leads us to conclude that they were
either totally unfounded or asserted merely for purposes of
delay. As a result, respondent has been put to considerable
trouble and expense. In addition, petitioner has repeatedly
acted in derogation of the pretrial standing order and other
orders of this Court. All of this would lead us to conclude that
petitioner should be sanctioned. However, upon consideration of
the fourth factor (the sufficiency of lesser sanctions) the
preference expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit in Hillig v. Commissioner, 916 F.2d at 174-175, for
monetary sanctions rather than dismissal leads us to choose a
monetary sanction, for which respondent has also moved, rather
than dismissal. We discuss the monetary sanction infra.
At the pretrial calendar call, we stated that we would treat
petitioner's Statement of Legal Claims as a motion for summary
judgment. In addition, by our order of October 13, 1995, the
facts set forth in respondent's proposed stipulation of facts
were deemed established for purposes of this case pursuant to
Rule 91(f). Inasmuch as petitioner wishes to press his "legal"
arguments, as opposed to the assignments of factual error
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011