- 10 -
(frivolous and groundless arguments, including denial that wages
are income; dismissal for failure to state a claim). However, in
Mathes v. Commissioner, 788 F.2d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1986), affg.
on other grounds an Order of this Court, Justice (then Judge)
Scalia expressed the view that the mere weakness of a party's
arguments can never by itself justify dismissal for failure to
prosecute--"The substantive merits of a claim are of course
irrelevant to the propriety of a dismissal for failure to
prosecute"--and affirmed our order to dismiss for failure to
prosecute not because the taxpayer's arguments were frivolous but
because he had disobeyed orders and failed to appear at trial.
The Court solicited respondent's motion to dismiss, after
petitioners had failed to appear at the calendar call. On
reflection, however, in the exercise of our discretion, we shall
address and dispose of the substantive issues in the case on the
basis of respondent's motion for summary judgment.
Rule 121(a) authorizes either party to move for summary
judgment on "all or any part of the legal issues in controversy".
Rule 121(b) requires the opposing party to file a written
response "within such period as the Court may direct" and
provides that decision shall be rendered in favor of the moving
party "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions,
admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011