Case Name: ESCRO STORAGE AND CARTAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER DISTRIBUTION LINE, INC. and Internal Revenue Service, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-02-16
Citations: 456 F.2d 182
Docket Number: No. 441, Docket 71-1900
Parties: ESCRO STORAGE AND CARTAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER DISTRIBUTION LINE, INC. and Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
ESCRO STORAGE AND CARTAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRONTIER DISTRIBUTION LINE, INC. and Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 441, Docket 71-1900.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Feb. 14, 1972.
Decided Feb. 16, 1972.
Richard B. Scott, Buffalo, N. Y. (Eugene C. Tenney, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Leonard J. Henzke, Jr. (Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Roth-wacks and Crombie J. D. Garrett, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice), for the United States.
Robert D. Gunderman, Buffalo, N. Y., for Frontier Distribution Line, Inc.
Before FEINBERG and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN, District Judge.
Of the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Escro Storage and Cartage, Inc. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John T. Curtin, dismissing its complaint against both defendants, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Frontier Distribution Line, Inc. (Frontier). The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's action for damages against the IRS, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (c) and (h). The court then refused in its discretion to hear plaintiff's pendent claim against Frontier. Plaintiff argues on appeal that jurisdiction exists under 26 U.S.C. § 6335, 7426, and 28 U.S.C. § 1340, 1346(a) (2) and (e). We have considered these claims and on this record find them without merit.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.