Kelly Sue Tipton, Petitioner, and Darren L. Darilek, Intervenor - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          explicitly mention intervenors, Rule 1(a) provides that “Where in           
          any instance there is no applicable rule of procedure, the Court            
          * * * may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to              
          the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are            
          suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand.”  Rule 41(b) of            
          the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may              
          dismiss a plaintiff for failure to prosecute.2  A court’s                   
          authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute is not limited to             
          plaintiffs but extends to intervening parties.  See, e.g.,                  
          Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Educ. Mgmt. Inc., No. Civ. A. 04-1053                
          (E.D. La., Aug. 31, 2006) (holding that certain intervening                 
          parties were properly dismissed for failure to prosecute their              
          claims where they failed to appear at properly noticed                      
          depositions).                                                               
               At the call of the instant case from the Court’s October 30,           
          2006, trial session calendar in Atlanta, Georgia, respondent                
          presented the Court with a proposed decision stipulated by                  
          petitioner and respondent, but not signed by intervenor, that               
          would grant petitioner complete section 6015 relief.  If                    
          intervenor did not agree with the proposed decision stipulated by           
          respondent and petitioner, he had the right not to sign it, see             
          Corson v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 354 (2000), but he does not have           


               2We note that the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute            
          is an inherent power of a court.  Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370              
          U.S. 626, 629-630 (1962).                                                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011