Parke et al v. Glover et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 74 Motion for Charging Order filed by Parke Properties, LLC, Land Investments Properties, Inc., Charles Rodney Parke. A separate Charging Order to effectuate the decision in this memorandum w ill be entered contemporaneously herewith; it is further ORDERED that said Charging Order will become effective Tuesday, May 6, 2014, without further action by the Court unless an objection is filed, see infra, and the Court rescinds the Charging Order. The Defendants are granted leave to file any objection to the Plaintiffs' 74 Motion by 4/28/2014. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 4/21/2014. copies to parties. (sdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES RODNEY PARKE, et al.,
ED GLOVER, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00639-KD-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ “Motion Requesting Order Charging
Limited Liability Company Interest of Judgment Debtor and for other Ancilliary [sic] Relief in
Aid of Enforcement of Judgment” (Doc. 74).
On March 4, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $409,000.00, plus post-judgment interest
under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Doc. 72). No appeal was taken. The Plaintiffs represent that the
judgment has not been satisfied and now seek enforcement of that judgment. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs request the issuance of a charging order under Ala. Code § 10A-5-6.05.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1) provides that a “money judgment is enforced by
a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution--and in
proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it
applies.” The Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this action is based on diversity under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. “[F]ederal common law determines the scope of judgments rendered by federal
courts sitting in diversity. Under federal common law, an enforcing court should apply the law
of the state courts in the state where the rendering federal court sits, unless the state's law
conflicts with federal interests.” Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.,
404 F.3d 1297, 1310 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531
U.S. 497, 509 (2000)) (footnote omitted).
The Plaintiffs represent that Defendant Ed Glover has a membership interest in the
following limited liability companies (LLCs):
Valley Creek Land Company of York, LLC
Valley Creek Land Company of York, II, LLC
International Theme of York, LLC
Sand Pitt, LLC
International Hospitality of York, LLC
K, S, K, & L, LLC
KSK & L, LLC
K & L of Selma, LLC
Gloco Properties, LLC
K-LO Properties, LLC
KAMJO Properties, LLC
World Property of Jessup, LLC
Under the Alabama Limited Liability Company Law,1 “[o]n application to a court of
competent jurisdiction by any judgment creditor of a member or assignee, the court may charge
Ala. Code § 10A-5-1.01 et seq.
the interest of the member or assignee with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment
with interest. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee
of financial rights.” Ala. Code § 10A-5-6.05(a) (repealed effective Jan. 1, 2017). Section 10A5-6.05 “shall be the sole and exclusive remedy of a judgment creditor with respect to the
judgment debtor's membership interest.” 2 Id.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s motion for a charging order under
§ 10A-5-6.05 is due to be granted unless the Defendants can present valid authority indicating
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ “Motion Requesting Order
Charging Limited Liability Company Interest of Judgment Debtor and for other Ancilliary [sic]
Relief in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment” (Doc. 74) is GRANTED. A separate Charging
Order to effectuate the decision in this memorandum will be entered contemporaneously
herewith; it is further ORDERED that said Charging Order will become effective Tuesday,
May 6, 2014, without further action by the Court unless an objection is filed, see infra, and the
Court rescinds the Charging Order.
The Defendants are granted leave to file any objection to the Plaintiffs’ “Motion
This Court has previously issued charging orders under this statute in other actions. See
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Mitchell Co., Civil Action No. 11-00578-N, 2013 WL 5745839 (S.D. Ala.
Oct. 23, 2013) (Nelson, M.J.); Regions Bank v. Stewart, Civil Action No. 10-0145-M, 2011 WL
1827453 (S.D. Ala. May 10, 2011) (Milling, M.J.); Vision Bank v. Swindall, Civil Action No.
09–442–CG–M (S.D. Ala. April 3, 2012 (Doc. 108); November 30, 2010 (Doc. 71); December 4,
2012 (Doc. 111)). Other federal courts have done so as well under the state statutes of their
respective jurisdictions. See Scottsdale Ins., 2013 WL 5745839, at n.2 (citing cases).
The Plaintiffs also request “that this Court enter an order granting ancillary relief in aid
of enforcement, pursuant to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, enjoining the
Defendants from transferring, conveying, assigning, or otherwise disposing of any property
owned by Edward Glover and Valley Creek Land Company of York, LLC or Defendant, Ed
Glover’s interest in” the above-named LLCs.” (Doc. 74 at 2, ¶ 5). This request is DENIED at
this time. Neither Rule 69 nor § 10A-5-6.05 specifically provides for such relief, and the
Requesting Order Charging Limited Liability Company Interest of Judgment Debtor and for
other Ancilliary [sic] Relief in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment” (Doc. 74) on or before
Monday, April 28, 2014.
DONE and ORDERED this the 21st day of April 2014.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs have cited no other authority that would support granting such relief.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?