Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge
The United States filed suit to reduce to judgment certain federal income tax assessments against Louis John Kaeckell and Dickie C. Kaeckell, and to foreclose their property. In response, defendants contend that they are not required to pay income taxes. On September 27, 1999, the Court directed the Clerk to enter default based on defendants' failure to answer or otherwise defend the allegations of the amended complaint. See Order (Doc. #64) filed September 27, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the Court held a hearing to determine the amount of damages. Defendants did not appear. On November 4, 1999, based on the evidence which the United States produced at the hearing, the Court directed entry of judgment against defendants. See Judgment (Doc. #81) filed November 3, 1999. On February 15, 2000, the Court overruled defendants' motions to alter or amend judgment. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #91) filed February 15, 2000. On March 13, 2000, defendants filed for bankruptcy and the case was stayed. On August 15, 2000, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. This matter is before the Court on defendants' Amended Motion To Vacate Judgment (Doc. #99) filed June 8, 2000; defendants' Motion To Strike Internal Revenue Service Documents (Doc. #101) filed July 18, 2000; defendants' Notice Of Discovery; Motion For Continuance (Doc. #103) filed August 9, 2000; and defendants' proposed Memorandum Order to Vacate (Doc. #105) filed August 14, 2000. For reasons set forth below, defendants' motions are overruled.
The Court has discretion whether to grant or deny a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b). See Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266, 1272 (10th Cir. 1998). Relief under Rule 60(b), however, is "extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances." Id. Like a motion to reconsider, a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments that previously failed. See Voelkel v. General Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1994).
Defendants seek relief under Rule 60(b)(3) (judgments obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of adverse party) and 60(b)(4) (void judgments). Initially the Court must deny defendants' motion because their arguments do not warrant relief from a prior judgment under Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Each of their arguments were raised in prior filings and rejected by the Court. Defendants have simply recast their arguments with vague allegations that the judgment is void or was obtained by fraud. In addition, as explained in the Court's previous orders, defendants' arguments lack substantive merit. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #91) filed February 15, 2000; Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1990); Shipley v. Internal Rev. Serv., No. 99-2231-KHV, 2000 WL 575019 (D.Kan. Mar. 30, 2000) (rejecting similar challenges to authority of IRS).
In their motions to strike and for a continuance, defendants challenge the general authority of the IRS. The Court has previously rejected the same argument. Moreover, both motions are untimely.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Amended Motion To Vacate Judgment (Doc. #99) filed June 8, 2000, be and hereby is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion To Strike Internal Revenue Service Documents (Doc. #101) filed July 18, 2000, be and hereby is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Notice Of Discovery; Motion For Continuance (Doc. #103) filed August 9, 2000, be and hereby is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' proposed Memorandum Order to Vacate (Doc. #105) filed August 14, 2000, be and hereby is OVERRULED.