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)

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-