United States v. Lorie Sharpe ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2499
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LORIE B. SHARPE,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-20-cv-02490)
District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 5, 2023
Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 20, 2023)
___________
OPINION *
___________
PER CURIAM
Lorie Sharpe appeals pro se from orders of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying her motion to dismiss and granting summary
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
judgment in favor of appellee. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District
Court’s judgment.
I.
From 2012 to 2016, Sharpe filed federal income tax returns that, upon an audit
conducted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), overstated the amount of her income
tax withholding. The audit revealed that the IRS had erroneously issued Sharpe over
$450,000 in income tax refunds. In 2020, the Government filed an action in the District
Court seeking to reduce to judgment its tax assessments against Sharpe, recover the
erroneously paid refunds, and collect civil penalty assessments imposed on Sharpe for
filing frivolous returns. Sharpe filed a document denominated an answer and
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the suit was barred by res judicata
and that, although she received actual notice of the action, she was not properly served.
The District Court denied Sharpe’s motion to dismiss. Upon completion of discovery,
the Government brought a motion for summary judgment; Sharpe did not file a response
in opposition. The District Court granted the Government’s motion for summary
judgment and entered a judgment in its favor.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s denial of Sharpe’s motion to dismiss based on improper service
of process, see McCurdy v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir.
2
1998), and its grant of summary judgment, see Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767
F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). 1
III.
On appeal, Sharpe challenges the District Court’s denial of her improper service of
process defense. The District Court, however, correctly concluded that the Government
properly effectuated service of process by leaving a copy of the complaint and summons
with Sharpe’s 17-year-old son at the residence owned by Sharpe and at which she
received mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B); see also Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am.
v. Brenneke, 551 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2009) (“So long as a party receives sufficient
notice of the complaint, Rule 4 is to be liberally construed to uphold service.”) (quotation
marks omitted). The District Court therefore had personal jurisdiction over Sharpe. See
Lampe v. Xouth, Inc., 952 F.2d 697, 701 (3d Cir. 1991).
To the extent that Sharpe challenges the District Court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of the Government, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that
the Government submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence, amount, and
date of each assessment, penalty, or overpayment. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6702, 7405; Freck v.
IRS, 37 F.3d 986, 991 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994) (determining that assessments are presumed
valid and establish a prima facie case of tax liability). The Government presented
evidence that Sharpe received undue refunds totaling $452,803.89, was subject to penalty
1
Sharpe does not challenge the District Court’s denial of her motion to dismiss based on
res judicata in her brief, and we accordingly do not reach that issue. See United States v.
Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005).
3
assessments totaling $36,751.10, and owed unpaid taxes totaling $65,101.51, plus interest
and other statutory additions. Sharpe presented no persuasive evidence or argument that
she is not liable. Indeed, she did not challenge the correctness of the amounts due, see
United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1329, 1331 (3d Cir. 1989) (holding that once the
Government establishes its case, the taxpayer then bears the burden of proving that he or
she is not liable for the assessments), and she has arguably forfeited any argument on
appeal by failing to meaningfully challenge the District Court’s order in her brief, see
supra n.1. Sharpe’s remaining contentions, which focus on the repossession of a vehicle,
are not germane to this appeal.
For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. The
Government’s motion to file a second supplemental appendix is granted.
4