United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE JENNIFER G. ZIPPS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action, Plaintiffs request that the Court set aside judgment
entered against them in a 2005 suit, Donald D. Bailey and
Sandra M. Bailey v. United States, Case No. CV 05-310
TUC-CKJ, and that the Court award Plaintiffs the tax refund
that they sought in that 2005 action. (Doc. 6 at 4.)
Plaintiffs cite Rule 60(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, in support of their request for relief.
(Id. at 1.)
pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to Amend (Doc. 16); (2) Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 17); (3) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
Amend the Fourth Time (Doc. 19); and (4) Plaintiffs'
Motion for Status of Case (Doc. 26). For the following
reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' motions to amend
and grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
2005, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court before the
Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson seeking a refund of federal
income taxes for the 1992 tax year. (Doc. 17 at 2; Donald
D. Bailey and Sandra M. Bailey v. United States, Case
No. CV 05-310 TUC-CKJ ("the 2005 action").) After a
bench trial, Judge Jorgenson entered final judgment in favor
of the United States and assessed costs against Plaintiffs in
the amount of $2, 774.33. (Doc. 17-1 at 14-23.) Judge Jorgenson
denied Plaintiffs' subsequent motions for a new trial and
motions filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (See Doc. 17 at 2-4.)
instant matter, Plaintiffs request that this Court set aside
the judgment entered against them in the 2005 action and find
that they are entitled to a tax refund of $40, 098 for the
1992 tax year. (Doc. 6 at 4.) Plaintiffs again rely on Rule
60(b) in support of their request for relief.
moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint on
grounds of res judicata and for failure to state a claim.
doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on
the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies
based on the same cause of action." Tahoe-Sierra
Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning
Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Res judicata also bars
new claims that could have been brought in the earlier
action. Id. Res judicata applies whenever there is
(1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the
merits, and (3) privity between parties. Id.
doctrine of res judicata precludes Plaintiffs' instant
attempt to relitigate the 2005 action. Plaintiffs' claim
for a refund is the same claim litigated against the same
parties in the 2005 action, in which final judgment has been
entered. In fact, in the 2005 action, Plaintiffs sought to
set aside the judgment by presenting the court with the same
arguments and types of evidence as presented in this action.
(See e.g., Doc. 17-1 at 45-49; Donald D. Bailey
and Sandra M. Bailey v. United States, Case No. CV
05-310 TUC-CKJ at Docs. 158, 160, 163.) Thus, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs' action is barred under the doctrine of
motions to amend do not show that Plaintiffs can overcome
application of this doctrine. In seeking amendment,
Plaintiffs concede that the issues in the 2005 action
"are the same as this case." (Docs. 16, 19.) As
such, the doctrine of res judicata would bar the amended
claims. Because leave to amend is properly denied when
amendment would be futile, the Court will deny
Plaintiffs' motions to amend. See BCD Programs, Ltd.
v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987)
("[F]utile amendments should not be permitted.")
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 16) is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Fourth ...