- 7 -
as to her level of participation in that proceeding.” The Court
denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. In this
case, there is more than just petitioner’s testimony. She has
also offered evidence that at the time she signed the decision
document there was a protective order in effect against her
former husband, and there is evidence that she did not sign
either the petition or the amended petition in the prior case.
Respondent has neither produced evidence negating an
essential element of petitioner’s case, nor has he shown a
“complete failure of proof” in the record on an essential element
of petitioner’s case. Respondent has failed to make the initial
showing required by Rule 121(b) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317 (1986). The Court, as a result, finds that respondent
has failed to show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of
law that petitioner is barred by the doctrine of res judicata
from pursuing relief under section 6015. The Court therefore
denies respondent’s motion for summary judgment.
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011