David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

         limitations had expired before the powers were restored.  The                
         Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed both of the                  
         District Court’s holdings.  As to the latter holding that the                
         plaintiff’s untimely revival did not give it the capacity to sue,            
         the Court of Appeals concluded that California law does not allow            
         the corporate reinstatement to validate retroactively the                    
         plaintiff’s earlier filing.  The expiration of the period of                 
         limitations before plaintiff’s suspension was lifted acted as a              
         bar to the plaintiff’s maintaining the antitrust action.                     
              We shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition              
         for lack of jurisdiction.  In so doing, we are mindful that this             
         Court has held repeatedly that Rule 60(a) allows a petition filed            
         timely by an improper party to be continued in the name of the               
         proper party.  See, e.g., Gray v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 639, 648             
         (1980); Holt v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 829, 832 (1977); Brooks v.             
         Commissioner, 63 T.C. 709, 714-715 (1975); see also Rule 60(a),              
         which provides:                                                              
              A case timely brought shall not be dismissed on the                     
              ground that it is not properly brought on behalf of a                   
              party until a reasonable time has been allowed after                    
              objection for ratification by such party of the                         
              bringing of the case; and such ratification shall have                  
              the same effect as if the case had been properly                        
              brought by such party.                                                  
         Those cases are not pertinent to our decision herein.  In                    
         contrast to the taxpayers in those cases, petitioner did not have            
         the requisite capacity to bring an action in this Court when the             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011