When dueling motions jam the River of Resolution, it takes a crowbar to clear the way. Trust Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shilleagh”) Kerrigan to wield the Rooseveltian big stick. Christina Cavallaro, Transferee, et al., Docket No. 1128-21, filed 9/1/22, doesn’t want a trial, and neither does IRS. But IRS wants summary J, and so moves; ChrisCav wants Appeals to sort it out, and seeks a stay three (count ’em, three) weeks after IRS.

I’m not saying Appeals doesn’t want to work, but this is a good opportunity to freeze sorting until IRS’ motion gets handled.

Ten months of silence provokes an order from Ch J TBS to bukh about status. Hearing this standstill, Ch J TBS orders each side to respond to the other’s motion.

“…the Court received petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order. That motion explains tha ‘requiring petitioners to respond to respondent’s motion for summary judgment runs counter to [their request for a stay] by allowing proceedings to continue apace.’ Given the fact that no action was taken by the parties to work towards resolution of these issues during the preceding ten months, it appears to the Court that directing responses to the pending motions is appropriate. Upon the filing of this Order and the assignment of the motion to stay, the parties should be prepared to participate in a conference call to discuss the pending Motion to Stay Proceedings.” Order, at p. 1.

And STJ Peter (“HB”) Panuthos gets the motion to stay.

Now we all know that STJ HB Panuthos earned the sobriquet “HB” because he engages in old-time head-banging. For any who don’t, see my blogpost “Old-Time Head-Banging – Part Deux,” 9/4/20.

And Ch J TBS tolerates no delay.