Darlene Mattingly, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. United States of America, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 9113·939 F.2d 816·1991 WL 136727·20 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 27·68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5080
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 199189-16567, 89-16718California2,005 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schroeder, J.

In this tax case, the United States appeals from a sanction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, requiring it to pay $1,000 to the Clerk of the District Court. The district court announced the sanction in a published opinion to serve as a public reprimand to the government attorney involved. Mattingly v. United States, 711 F.Supp. 1535 (D.Nev.1989). The conduct sanctioned was the filing of a meritless counterclaim seeking to hold the plaintiff-appellee, Darlene Mattingly, liable as a “responsible person” for corporate taxes allegedly owed by her employer. See 26 U.S.C. § 6672 (1988) (employee with power to authorize payment may be held personally liable for company’s failure to account for and pay withheld payroll taxes). The government eventually conceded that Mattingly was not liable because the government concluded, after a reallocation of payments, that there was no corporate liability. The district court imposed the sanctions because, in its view, the government attorney should have known before filing the counterclaim that Mattingly was not a “responsible person” within the meaning of section 6672.

The government appeals, contending that the district court lacked jurisdiction to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.