I can’t count how many times I’ve applied the designation to Judge David Gustafson That Obliging Jurist. All of us practitioners have been before irascible types, seeing newbies shredded and even oldtimers pulped by scorn and sarcasm, where self-defense is worse than silence. Judge David Gustafson is the reverse, a true gentleman.

So there’s got to be a lot to get him to turn to that old poker sanction, and call the clock in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc., Docket No. 14616-14L, filed 9/1/26.

Now before all y’all shout as one voice “Didn’t that get finished in 2022?” yes, 9 Cir reversed and remanded in the famous “any time before supe loses supervisory powers” holding. But the case is still unresolved. IRS is willing to drop the liability and the Section 6707A chop, but Laidlaw’s claims they’re owed money and their counsel, the celebrated William J. (“Old Bill”) Wise, Esq., is sick. I’m sure we all wish Old Bill the swiftest recovery. So Laidlaw’s and IRS want more time.

Judge David Gustafson obliges, but calls the clock on this waltz of the decades.

“We will grant that extension, but we do not expect to grant any further extension. While we have immediate sympathy for counsel’s situation, this case and the fourteen cases related to it (filed in 2014-2019) have been long pending; the Commissioner’s concession has been long known; and the Court has a responsibility to bring these cases to conclusion. The pendency of a case is not cost-free to the Court, and the passage of time often makes a case more difficult to resolve, not easier. Moreover, extensions are granted when it is shown that the delay would better enable the presentation of the case, but not when a delay would simply leave the parties in the same circumstance in which they were at the time of the previous deadline, or in worse circumstance. We hope and assume that two more months will restore petitioner’s counsel to health and that he reasonably expects to be able to file his responses by that date; but sometimes the passage of time does not actually promote a party’s ability to conduct a case. If counsel will not be able to do the work necessary to bring these cases to conclusion, then he has the ethical responsibility to his clients and to the Court to cooperate in the retention of new counsel who can do so. We hope and assume that current counsel will be able to bring these cases to conclusion.” Order, at p. 2.