Professional Documents
Culture Documents
________________________________________
)
WILLIAM M. GREENE and )
KAREN M. GREENE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 1:08-cv-0280-LEK-DRH
v. )
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
The United States of America, improperly named and sued as the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”), hereby submits its response to plaintiffs’ motion for refusal of notice of
appearance and to strike all pleadings . . . in the name of the United States because the United
States is not a defendant in the captioned case (“Motion to Strike.”) The Court should deny
On March 12, 2008, Plaintiffs William M. Greene and Karen M. Greene filed a complaint
styled as a qui tam action. Plaintiffs served their original complaint on the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of New York to provide the government with the opportunity
to determine whether it desired to intervene in this matter. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2006, after the government did not take any
action to intervene (Docket Entry No. 6.) Defendant IRS was served with the amended
Case 1:08-cv-00280-LEK-DRH Document 16 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 2 of 3
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). The United States, on behalf of its agency the IRS,
filed a motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 13.) Plaintiffs now seek to strike the appearance of
the trial attorney who has entered an appearance on behalf of the IRS, the United States’ agency,
and to strike all pleadings filed by the United States because the United States is not a named
As stated in the United States’ motion to dismiss, plaintiffs’ action against the IRS cannot
proceed because Congress has not authorized suit against this agency in its own name. See
generally Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 515 (1952); Krouse v. United States Gov’t Treas.
Dep’t Internal Revenue Serv., 380 F. Supp. 219, 2221 (C.D. Cal. 1974). Even if plaintiffs had
brought this suit against the United States, plaintiffs fail to allege any basis for a wavier of
sovereign immunity and their suit should therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Respectfully submitted,
GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States Attorney
-2-
Case 1:08-cv-00280-LEK-DRH Document 16 Filed 06/17/2008 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that on June 17, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing United States’
Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Refusal of Notice of Appearance and to Strike All Pleadings .
. . in the Name of the United States Because the United States is Not a Defendant in the
Captioned Case with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will
be sent by e-mail to all parties registered to receive electronic notification. I have mailed by First
Class United States mail, postage prepaid, the foregoing document to the following non-CM/ECF
participants:
William M. Greene
P.O. Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186
Karen M. Greene
P.O. Box 279
Voorheesville, NY 12186
Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF System.