2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-25-2010 

# H all-D it chfield v

. U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3052

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" H all -Dit chfie ld v

. U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1826. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1826NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### No. 09- 3052 K A T H L E E N E . H A L L -D IT C H F IE L D , A ppel l ant

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2: 07- cv- 01290) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February1, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: February25, 2010)

OP I NI ON

PER C URIAM K athl een H al l - D i t chfi el d, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der d ism issi n g h er c o m p lai n t i n p art, as w ell as th e c o u rt ’s l ater o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary2

ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f th e G o v e rn m e n t. F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m . I. B e c a u se th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a se is f

a m ili a r to th e p a rties , w e d isc u ss it o n ly b rie f lyh e re . In M a y2 0 0 7 , H a ll-D itch f ield f iled a c o m p lain t in th e D istric t C o u rt, chal l engi ng t he I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce’ s ( “I R S”) r ej ect i on of hert ax r efund c l ai m s for tax y e a rs 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 0 , an d 2 0 0 1 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t, ar gui ng t hatt he courtl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e H al l - D i t chfi el d had fai l ed t o fi l e a t i m el yadmi ni s t r at i ve cl ai m fora t ax r efund w i t h t he I R S, as r equi r ed by26 U .S .C . § 6 5 1 1 . In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the c o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n in p a rt, di s m i s s i ng H al l - D i t chfi el d’ s cl ai m s r el at i ng t o t ax y ear s 1999 and 2000. T he courtdeni ed t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on as t o hercl ai m fort ax y ear2001, concl udi ng t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci enti nform at i on t o det erm i ne w hethers he had t i m el ys ubm i t t ed an a dm i ni s t r at i ve c la im f o r t h a t ta x y e a r. I n A ugus t2008, t he courthel d a conf er ence , atw hi ch the part i es pr es ent ed evi dence r egar di ng t he t i m el i nes s of H al l - D i t chfi el d’ s admi ni s t r at i ve cl ai m fort ax y ear 2001. I n M ay2009, bot h par t i es m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n J une 9, 2009, t he cour tdeni ed H al l - D i t chfi el d’ s m ot i on and gr ant ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on. I n doi ng s o, t he courthel d t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overhercl ai m fort ax y ear2001, forher a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c l a i m f

o rt h a tt a x ye a rw a s u n t i m e l y. T h e c o u r tf u r t h e rh e l d t h a t§ 6 5 1 1 's l i m i t at i ons per i od w as nots ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. H al l - D i t chfi el d now appea l s t heB eca us e the equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne i s i nappl i cabl e her e, w e nee d notdet erm i ne 1 w h e th e r H a ll- D itc h f

ie ld w o u ld b e e n title d to e q u ita b le to llin g w e re it a v a ila b le . c o u rt ’s J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 a n d J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e rs . II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overa di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o gr anta mot i on t o di s m i s s . Sant i ago v. G M A C M o rtg a g e G ro u p , In c ., 4 1 7 F .3 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), as w e ll as its d e c isio n to g ra n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A tk in s o n v . L a f a y e tte C o ll., 4 6 0 F .3 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). F o r su b sta n tiallyth e re a so n s g iv e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e a g re e w ith its di s pos i t i on of H al l - D i t chfi el d’ s cl ai m s . A l t hough s he ar gues t hathercl ai m s s houl d be equi t abl yt ol l ed, t hatar gum enti s for ecl os ed byU ni t ed St at es v. B r ockamp, 519 U . S. 347, 354 ( 1997) , w hi ch hel d t hat§ 6511' s l i m i t at i ons per i od i s nots ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. 1 D e sp ite h e r c o n ten tio n to th e c o n tra ry , tha t d o c trin e ’s in a p p lica b ili tyh e re d o e s n o t v io late herFi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J une 11, 2 0 0 8 a n d J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e rs .