United States v. Mooney
- Susan Nelson
- 0:16-cv-02547
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In United States v. Mooney, Judge Nelson overruled the Mooneys’ objection, denied their motions, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The ruling affected the United States, defendants William J. Mooney and Joni T. Mooney, and Harbor Holdings, Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators. It ended the action with prejudice and left the Mooneys’ motions denied.
What happened
United States v. Mooney involved the United States and defendants William J. Mooney, Joni T. Mooney, and Harbor Holdings, Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators. William and Joni Mooney represented themselves and asked the court to dismiss the case and set aside a May 15, 2018 judgment against them.
The Mooneys objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that their motions be denied. They repeated arguments about the court’s authority to hear the case, the government lawyer’s authority to bring it, their citizenship, and the effect of a separate Tax Court case. The court said these arguments had already been rejected or were unrelated to this case.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled the objection, adopted the recommendation in full, and denied both motions. The court also dismissed the action with prejudice, meaning the case was ended and could not be refiled in that form.
The detailed version
- United States v. Mooney · No. 0:16-cv-02547
- Susan Nelson
- Nov. 1, 2018
Background
The United States brought this action against William J. Mooney, Joni T. Mooney, and Harbor Holdings, Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators. The court had previously entered judgment against the Mooneys on May 15, 2018, following an order granting the United States’ motion for summary judgment.
On June 13, 2018, William and Joni Mooney filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to vacate the judgment. Because they did not identify a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois treated their post-judgment request as arising under Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment in specified circumstances. The magistrate judge concluded that the Mooneys had not shown circumstances warranting relief, such as mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. The magistrate judge also found that their arguments repeated positions previously rejected by the court.
Objection and analysis
The Mooneys objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Their objections included claims that the district court lacked authority or subject-matter jurisdiction, that counsel for the United States lacked authority to bring the action because of a distinction between “the United States” and “the United States of America,” and that they were citizens of Minnesota rather than the United States. They also argued that a separate Tax Court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should prevent this court from considering the action.
The court stated that the first three groups of arguments had already been addressed and rejected in earlier orders. It therefore overruled those objections. The court also rejected the Tax Court argument, explaining that the Tax Court’s dismissal had resulted from the absence of a notice of deficiency for the relevant taxable years and had nothing to do with the ruling in this action.
Ruling
After reviewing the record, Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled the Mooneys’ objection and adopted Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied the Mooneys’ motion to dismiss and motion to vacate judgment. It further ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Disposition
- The Mooneys’ objection was overruled.
- The report and recommendation was adopted in its entirety.
- The motion to dismiss and motion to vacate judgment were denied.
- The action was dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.