Enterprise Bank & Trust v. Vintage Ranch Investments LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER that Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, LLC's 46 Motion for Relief from Judgment as to Evelyn Hendrix only is GRANTED. Defendant/Judgment Debtor Evelyn Hendrix ONLY has satisfied, and is hereby relieved from, the April 16, 2012 Judgment entered this action. On the Court's own motion, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall use the above caption in all future filings herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 7/9/2013.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Yellowdog Investments, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company and Successor-in-Interest to Enterprise Bank & Trust, a Missouri chartered trust company, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 15 Vintage Ranch Investment, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; M. Laurin Hendrix and Evelyn Hendrix, husband and wife, Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-11-1797-PHX-LOA ORDER 17 This contract action comes before the Court on Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, 18 LLC’s (“Yellowdog”) Motion for Relief from Judgment as to Evelyn Hendrix only. (Doc. 19 46) Yellowdog informs the Court that Defendant Evelyn Hendrix, the current or former 20 spouse of Defendant M. Laurin Hendrix, “[h]as satisfied, and been released and discharged 21 of, her obligations under the April 16, 2012 Judgment (the “Judgment”) entered in this 22 action.” (Id.) Yellowdog requests Evelyn Hendrix only be released from the April 16, 2012 23 Judgment. 24 On June 25, 2013, the Court granted former Plaintiff Enterprise Bank & Trust’s 25 Motion for Substitution of Non-Party. (Docs. 44-45) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 26 Procedure 25(c), Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, LLC, successor-in-interest in this action 27 and Judgment to Enterprise Bank & Trust, a Missouri chartered trust company, was 28 1 substituted in this action and Judgment as Plaintiff. (Id.) 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides a defendant in a civil case may 3 obtain relief from a final judgment when the “[t]he judgment has been satisfied, released or 4 discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying 5 it prospectively is no longer equitable[.]” “The ‘satisfied, released, or discharged’ clause of 6 Rule 60(b)(5) is generally invoked when a party seeks entry of satisfaction of judgment 7 because no acknowledgment of satisfaction has been delivered due to an ongoing dispute 8 over the judgment amount.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations 9 omitted). While Plaintiff does not explain why a simple filing with the Clerk of Court a 10 partial satisfaction of judgment according to Arizona law in this diversity action would not 11 have satisfied the judgment to Evelyn Hendrix only, applying Rule 60(b)(5), Fed.R.Civ.P., 12 to Plaintiff’s motion “comports with the plain language of the rule.” Id. at 996 (citing Wolf- 13 Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 873 (7th Cir. 1983) (Rule 69(a) requires application of state 14 law to satisfaction of judgment issue)). 15 Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request and good cause appearing, 16 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, LLC’s Motion for Relief 17 from Judgment as to Evelyn Hendrix only, doc. 46, is GRANTED. Defendant/Judgment 18 Debtor Evelyn Hendrix ONLY has satisfied, and is hereby relieved from, the April 16, 2012 19 Judgment entered this action. 20 On the Court’s own motion, 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall use the above caption in all future 22 23 filings herein. Dated this 9th day of July, 2013. 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

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?