Mark Crumpacker, Appellant v. Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Mark Crumpacker, Appellant v. Caroline Ciraolo-Klepper, et al., Appellees

No. 17-5054

Decided: September 13, 2017

BEFORE: Kavanaugh, Pillard, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the responses thereto; and the motions for summary reversal and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motions for summary reversal be denied. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly dismissed the cases on the ground that appellants' challenges are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. ยง 7421(a), and appellants have not shown that the limited exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, articulated in Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 7 (1962), applies to these cases.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam