William Brockhaus v Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri

Filing 40

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF CONTEMPT ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT LUIS MIGUEL GALLEGOS BASTERI by Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. It is therefore recommended that the District Judge set an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt. ( See Order for details) [Note Changes Made By The Court] (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

David Jacobs
(SBN 73545)
Amy B. Messigian
(SBN 250139)
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310.553.2165
[e-mail]
NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT
[e-mail]
Kenneth J. Kelly, Pro Hac Vice
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
250 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10177
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.878.8600
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
WILLIAM BROCKHAUS

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

Case No.: 2:16-cv-06275-VAP (JPRx)

William Brockhaus,

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

Luis Miguel Gallego Basteri
a/k/a Luis Miguel,

18

Defendant.

19

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
IN SUPPORT OF CONTEMPT
ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANT
LUIS MIGUEL GALLEGOS
BASTERI

20
21

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

22

Plaintiff William Brockhaus (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits the following

23

proposed findings of fact in support of an order of contempt.
Proposed Findings of Fact

24
25

1.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment in the Southern District of New York

26

against Defendant Luis Miguel Gallegos Basteri a/k/a Luis Miguel (“Defendant”)

27

in the amount of $1,043,483.77, which judgment was registered in this Court at

28

Dkt. No. 1.

Firm:43123783v1

Proposed Findings of Fact ISO Contempt Order
Case No. 2:16-cv-06275-VAP (JPRx)

2.

1
2

A writ of execution was issued on August 22, 2016 for the full amount

of the judgment plus interest at Dkt No. 7.
3.

3

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff applied for a judgment debtor exam

4

before this Court at Dkt. No. 15. The application was referred by Judge Phillips to

5

Hon. Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth for consideration at Dkt. No. 17.
4.

6

On January 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth ordered the

7

personal appearance of Defendant for a judgment debtor exam on February 16,

8

2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 827-A of the above-referenced court at Dkt. No.

9

19.

10

5.

As reflected in representations made by counsel to the Court at the

11

hearing on February 16, 2017, as well as the declaration of due diligence and

12

proofs of service filed on February 13, 2017, Plaintiff had difficulty effecting

13

personal service on Defendant but was ultimately able to do so on February 10,

14

2017. Plaintiff had apparently also posted notice of the judgment debtor exam on

15

the gate of Defendant’s residence and mailed a copy of the notice to Defendant, as

16

reflected in Dkt. 23.

17

6.

Counsel from New York appearing pro hac vice for Plaintiff appeared

18

for Defendant’s judgment debtor exam before this Court on February 16, 2017. No

19

appearance was made by Defendant or his counsel. Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth

20

continued the exam to March 9, 2017 and ordered Plaintiff to serve notice of the

21

exam, including minutes of the proceeding, on Defendant by personal service as

22

reflected in the Court Minutes at Dkt. No.28.

23

7.

On February 23, 2017, Defendant was personally served with notice

24

of the exam and Court Minutes at the Aria Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada in the valet

25

area. Proof of personal service was filed on March 2, 2017 at Dkt. No. 29. The

26

Court has evaluated the proof of service that was filed and finds it to be valid on its

27

face and reflecting timely service of the documents required on Defendant to

28

require his appearance on March 9, 2017 for a judgment debtor exam.

Firm:43123783v1

-2Proposed Findings of Fact ISO Contempt Order
Case No. 2:16-cv-06275-VAP (JPRx)

1
2

///
8.

Counsel from New York appearing pro hac vice for Plaintiff appeared

3

for Defendant’s judgment debtor exam before this Court on March 9, 2017. Again

4

no appearance was made by Defendant or his counsel. Neither Defendant nor his

5

counsel attempted to continue the judgment debtor exam by contacting the Court,

6

and Plaintiff’s counsel has represented that no attempts were made to Plaintiff to

7

continue the exam. Plaintiff’s counsel requested a bench warrant be issued or

8

Defendant fined for his non-appearance. See Dkt. No. 34. Although the Court

9

denied this request, it appears to the Magistrate Judge that Defendant Luis Miguel

10

is in contempt of a court order. It is therefore recommended that the District Judge

11

set an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt.
DATED: March 14, 2017
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.

12
13

By: /s/ Amy B. Messigian
David Jacobs
Amy B. Messigian
Kenneth J. Kelly

14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiff
WILLIAM BROCKHAUS

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Dated: March 17, 2017

24

____________________________________
Honorable Jean P. Rosenbluth,
Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court

25
26

cc: Judge Phillips

27
28

Firm:43123783v1

-3Proposed Findings of Fact ISO Contempt Order
Case No. 2:16-cv-06275-VAP (JPRx)