United States District Court, D. Maryland
XINIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff United States' renewed
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 53) and a second motion
to withdraw as attorney by counsel for Defendant Roger R.
Blunt. ECF No. 61. The motions are fully briefed, and no
hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6. For the
following reasons, both motions are GRANTED.
United States' Motion for Summary Judgment
case arises from Blunt's failure to pay income taxes for
the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. Initially, the Treasury
Department assessed against Blunt $1, 182, 321.72 in federal
income tax (Form 1040) liabilities, and related penalties and
interest (collectively “the Assessments”). ECF
No. 1 ¶ 6. In accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 6303,
Treasury notified Blunt of the Assessments and demanded
payment. Id. ¶ 7. Since such time, statutory
interest and penalties continued to accrue. Id.
February 16, 2017, the United States initiated this civil
enforcement action to reduce to judgment the Assessments
against Blunt, and thereafter moved for summary judgment in
its favor on April 12, 2017. ECF No. 1, 10. On April 17,
2017, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
adjusted downward the amount Blunt owed the United States.
ECF No. 15-2 ¶¶ 9-10; ECF Nos. 12, 12-1, 15. A
revenue officer with the IRS found that after accounting for
such adjustments, as well as penalties and interest, Blunt
owed the United States $1, 082, 849.69. ECF No. 15-2
¶¶ 14-10. The United States consequently updated
the amount it demanded from Blunt in this enforcement action.
ECF No. 15 at 5.
objected and sought discovery on the proper amounts owed. The
Court accordingly denied the United States' summary
judgment motion without prejudice and allowed Blunt's
requested discovery to proceed. ECF Nos. 22, 23. The Court
subsequently extended discovery deadlines on multiple
occasions well into 2019, all to accommodate Blunt. ECF Nos.
40, 43, 44, 48.
6, 2019, the United States renewed its motion for summary
judgment, requesting that the Court reduce to judgment the
Assessment of $1, 082, 849.69. ECF No. 53. Blunt responded
that he is “unable to provide this Court with any fresh
evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to oppose
Plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment.”
ECF No. 60.
judgment is appropriate when the court, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, finds no
genuine disputed issue of material fact, entitling the movant
to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986); Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th
Cir. 2008). “A party opposing a properly supported
motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,' but rather
must ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.'” Bouchat v. Baltimore
Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir.
2003) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).
concedes that he has not produced any evidence to dispute
that he owes $1, 082, 849.69 in unpaid taxes, calculated
through May 22, 2017. ECF No. 60. The United States, by
contrast, submits sufficient evidence to demonstrate that
Blunt remains indebted to the United States in that amount.
ECF Nos. 7-3, 7-4, 15-2, 15-3, 15-4. Thus, viewing the
evidence most favorably to Blunt, summary judgment is granted
in the United States' favor. The Court imposes judgment
in the amount of $1, 082, 849.69 in unpaid taxes, calculated
through May 22, 2017, plus all statutory interest, penalties,
and costs, less credits and payments, if any, that accrued
and will continue to accrue thereafter pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§§ 6601, 6621(a)(2) and 26 C.F.R. 301.6621-1, and
28 U.S.C. § 1961(c) until the balance is paid in full.
Renewed Motion to Withdraw
for Blunt initially moved to withdraw from representation
prior to responding to the United Sates' motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 54. The Court denied the motion,
finding that withdrawal during the pendency of renewed
summary judgment motion risked unfair delay and disruption of
the case already significantly delayed at Blunt's
request. The Court made clear, however, that counsel would be
free to renew his motion once United States' summary
judgment motion is resolved.
has renewed his motion. ECF No. 61. Because the Court grants
summary judgment in the Government's favor, thus
concluding the case on its merits, the Court finds
counsel's withdrawal no longer problematic. The Court,
therefore, grants counsel's renewed motion.
foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 53) and grants the motion to withdraw as