govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-20609-1

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., 
 
 Plaintiffs, 
v. 
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
___________________________________/ 
 
ORDER 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Reopen Case filed by 
thirty-five former federal judges (“Motion”) (DE 63). In the Motion, the non-party movants 
ask this Court to reopen the instant case pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, arguing that the Court should “exercise its authority under Rule 60 to set aside 
the judgment in this lawsuit . . . [and] resume its inquiry into whether there is an actual 
underlying case or controversy[.]” (DE 63 at 6). The non- party m ovants explain that 
although there is no settlement of record in this matter, public documents and 
announcements indicate that the dismissal of this case was premised on a purported 
settlement between the Parties.
1 In turn, movants submit that the settlement “is a product 
of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court.” (Id. at 9). 
A court is empowered to investigate serious misconduct as a collateral issue within 
the purview of Rule 11 and determine “whether an attorney has abused the judicial 
process.” Didie v. Howes, 988 F.2d 1097, 1103 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Willy v. Coastal 
 
1 As the Court noted in its April 29, 2026 Order (DE 43), Defendants did not file any notices of appearances and 
acted through Plaintiffs to ask the Court for relief from their imminent answer deadline. 
Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026 Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992) (holding that a district court could impose Rule 11 sanctions 
even where it was subsequently determined to lack subject matter jurisdiction) ; Ormsby 
Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 32 F.3d 240, 241 (7th Cir. 1994) (finding that a 
litigant cannot avoid sanctions by voluntarily dismissing the case). Rule 11 issues can be 
“raised sua sponte by the [C]ourt.” Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC v. Scidera, Inc. , 813 
F. App'x 368, 375 (11th Cir. 2020); see also Taylor v. Stanciel, 202 F. App'x 662, 663–64 
(5th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “a court may, on its own initiative, enter an order describing 
Rule 11 violations and ordering a party to show why it has not violated Rule 11”). 
“The purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings. ” Powrzanas v. Jones Util. & 
Contracting Co., 834 F. App'x 500, 507 (11th Cir. 2020) . Specifically, Rule 11 “requires 
that an attorney or unrepresented party filing a pleading certify that the filing is not 
presented for any improper purpose.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) ; see also In 
re Ames, 993 F.3d 27, 34 (1st Cir. 2021) (“Under Rule 11, a court may impose sanctions 
on a lawyer ‘for advocating a frivolous position, pursuing an unfounded claim, or filing a 
lawsuit for some improper purpose. ’”) (emphasis added). A party’s decision to file a 
frivolous lawsuit for the sole purpose of forcing a settlement may qualify as such an 
improper purpose. See Scott v. Vantage Corp., 64 F.4th 462, 472 (3d Cir. 2023) (affirming 
the district court’s finding that plaintiffs filed their complaint for an improper purpose when 
two out of the three claims lacked factual support and p laintiffs expressed that they filed 
the lawsuit to force a settlement). If a party files a lawsuit for an improper purpose, “ the 
court may impose an appropriate sanction on the responsible party. ” Powrzanas, 834 F. 
App'x at 507. 
Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026 Page 2 of 4
3 
 
Here, the non- party movants advance grievous allegations that Plaintiffs 
voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that “was 
collusive from the start” and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an 
unlawful settlement. (DE 63 at 16). They point to the fact that the settlement in question 
includes a “three-paragraph addendum2 . . . [that] purports to ‘forever bar[] and preclude[]’ 
the United States from pursuing claims that could have been [otherwise] asserted 
[against] Plaintiffs,” (Id. at 8), and highlight the fact that Defendants did not “even try[] to 
defend against Plaintiffs’ claims” despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims 
in other litigation.
3 (Id. at 16). Finally, the non-party movants assert that Plaintiffs’ claims 
were “clearly untimely” and therefore untenable. (Id.). 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs shall file a response 
to the Motion (DE 63) on or before June 12 , 2026, detailing their position on the matters 
set forth in the Motion, including (1) the charges of collusion and whether the Parties are 
truly adverse; (2) the assertion that the dismissal in this case was premised on deception 
by the Parties; and (3) the question of whether the case should be reopened because the 
Court was the “victim of a fraud.” (DE 63 at 13, citing 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. 
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2870 (3d ed.) ). The non-party movants may, if 
they choose, file a reply on or before June 19, 2026. 
 
2 This addendum, as the non- party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice 
policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are “specifically limited to the immediate 
subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised.” (DE 63 at 8). The addendum was signed only by the 
Acting Attorney General. 
 
3 The Court is aware of reporting that the IRS prepared a memorandum outlining ways to challenge Plaintiffs’ 
claims. Andrew Duehren, The I.R.S. Thought It Could Fight Trump’s Lawsuit, but It Struck a Deal Anyway, N.Y. 
Times (May 19, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/admin/irs-trump-lawsuit-deal.html. These defenses 
are consistent with the positions taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice in other litigation. 
Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026 Page 3 of 4
4 
 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 29th day of May, 
2026. 
 
Case 1:26-cv-20609-KMW Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026 Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight