United States v. Mooney

Background

The United States sued William J. Mooney, Joni T. Mooney, Harbor Holdings, and Mid-Atlantic Trustees and Administrators. The opinion addresses an objection filed by William and Joni Mooney, who represented themselves. The objection challenged Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s September 28, 2018 Report and Recommendation, which recommended denying the Mooneys’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate Judgment.

The Mooneys had asked the court to set aside a judgment entered against them on May 15, 2018. The magistrate judge treated the post-judgment request as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to provide relief from a judgment in specified circumstances. The magistrate judge found that the Mooneys had not shown circumstances such as mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. Instead, the judge found that they repeated arguments previously rejected by the court.

The objection

The Mooneys raised eleven objections, which the district court grouped into four categories:

- They argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. - They argued that the United States’ lawyer lacked authority to bring the lawsuit because of a supposed distinction between “the United States” and “the United States of America.” - They argued that they were citizens of Minnesota rather than citizens of the United States. - They argued that a Tax Court dismissal in a previous, unrelated case for lack of jurisdiction should prevent this court from considering the present case.

The district court stated that the first three categories had already been addressed and rejected in earlier orders. It declined to reconsider those arguments and overruled the objections concerning jurisdiction, the authority of the United States’ counsel, and citizenship. The court separately ruled that the Tax Court’s dismissal involved the absence of a notice of deficiency for the relevant taxable years and had nothing to do with the ruling in this case.

Ruling

After conducting the review required for the specific objections, Judge Susan Richard Nelson agreed with the magistrate judge. The court overruled the Mooneys’ objection, adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and denied the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate Judgment. The order did not grant either motion or set aside the earlier judgment.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court ruled on an objection and post-judgment motions rather than deciding a new underlying legal claim on its merits. The order’s own disposition was to overrule the objection, adopt the recommendation, and deny both motions.