- 14 - summary judgment. See, e.g., Little v. Liquid Air Corp., supra; Overseas Inns S.A. P.A. v. United States, 911 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1990); Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1979). As respondent acknowledges, however, there is no per se rule requiring the trial court to deny a motion for leave to amend after a motion for summary judgment has been filed. See Zaidi v. Ehrlich, 732 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984); Bamm, Inc. v. GAF Corp., 651 F.2d 389, 391-392 (5th Cir. 1981). Considering that the instant case was not scheduled for trial when petitioner filed its motion and that the issues are largely confined to the adjustments made in the FPAA, we conclude that it is appropriate to allow petitioner to amend its petition again. Having decided that petitioner may amend its petition again, we shall deny respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The second amended petition assigns error to the adjustments in the FPAA, thus raising genuine issues as to material facts. Summary judgment therefore is inappropriate. See Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 520. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order will be issued.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Last modified: November 10, 2007