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)

Download PDF
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: 310.556.8861 Facsimile: 310.553.2165 djacobs@ebglaw.com NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT amessigian@ebglaw.com Kenneth J. Kelly, Pro Hac Vice EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 250 Park Avenue New York, New York 10177 Telephone: 212.351.4500 Facsimile: 212.878.8600 kkelly@ebglaw.com 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)

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?