Rafi M Khan v. Shamrock Partners, et al

Filing 793

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Judgment Creditors' Motion to Hold Third Party Samuel Ben Moshe in Contempt 792 , without prejudice to being renewed at a later date. If Mr. Moshe's noncompliance continues, judgment creditors may wish to notice a motion to compel before the magistrate judge in this case. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:00-cv-00872-CAS-(CWx)

Title

RAFI M. KHAN V. SHAMROCK PARTNERS, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 4, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) MOTION FOR CONTEMPT (Dkt. 792, filed
October 31, 2013)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of November 18, 2013, is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
Judgment creditors served third party Samuel Ben Moshe with a subpoena duces
tecum on October 3, 2013. This subpoena required Mr. Moshe to supply judgment
creditors with “all documents, notes, and electronic documents relating to the property
listing of 501 Haverstock Rd., La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 . . . .” Judgment
creditors represent that they require this information in connection with their application
to sell judgment debtor Rafi Khan’s property, which is currently scheduled for a hearing
on November 25, 2013. Judgment creditors now move to hold Mr. Moshe in contempt
for failing to respond to the subpoena duces tecum. Judgment creditors further represent
to the Court that Mr. Moshe has been purposely evading their attempts to discuss the
subpoena with him.
The Court has reviewed the judgment creditors’ arguments, and hereby DENIES
the motion for contempt, without prejudice to being renewed at a later date. Even
assuming that judgment creditors are accurately describing Mr. Moshe’s efforts to avoid
complying with the subpoena duces tecum, the Court finds that contempt sanctions are
not warranted at this stage. In particular, judgment creditors have not yet moved to
compel Mr. Moshe’s compliance with the subpoena. Although a motion to compel is not
an absolute prerequisite for contempt sanctions, “[a]s a general matter . . . the more
prudent practice for the court is to issue such an order before entertaining a motion for
contempt.” U.S. S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 694 (7th Cir. 2010); see also 9A Charles
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:00-cv-00872-CAS-(CWx)

Date

November 4, 2013

Title

RAFI M. KHAN V. SHAMROCK PARTNERS, ET AL.

A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2465 (3d ed. 2008)
(“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing
either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”).
Accordingly, if Mr. Moshe’s noncompliance continues, judgment creditors may wish to
notice a motion to compel before the magistrate judge in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2