- 6 - that respondent planned to file a motion for summary judgment and to impose a penalty under section 6673(a)(1). In a letter dated October 23, 2006, petitioner asserted that discovery was unnecessary because review of petitioner’s case by the Court should be limited to the administrative record. On December 8, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the trial date and to set a briefing schedule, arguing that the Court should not conduct a trial but instead should look at the administrative record to review respondent’s determination. The Court denied petitioner’s motion, and on January 16, 2007, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration was calendared for hearing at the February 5, 2007, Los Angeles, California, trial session. On January 23, 2007, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court also calendared for hearing on the February 5, 2007, trial date. On February 2, 2007, petitioner filed a statement under Rule 50(c) in lieu of appearing at the trial session.4 On February 5, 2007, petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled trial session. The Court denied petitioner’s motion 4Rule 50(c) permits a party subject to a hearing on a motion to submit a statement of his position with supporting documents in lieu of or in addition to attendance at the hearing. It does not authorize the submission of a statement in lieu of an appearance at trial.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008