Travelers Casualty v. Dunmore, et al

Filing 425

SUPPLEMENTAL 399 ORDER for REPATRIATION signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/5/2019 ORDERING that within 7 days, Defendants shall: Provide the Court and Plaintiff with a full accounting of all assets, accounts, or documents in foreign count ries currently held; File with the Court and serve on Plaintiff a full accounting of all assets, accounts, or documents that had been repatriated to the US pursuant to 399 Order for Repatriation; Hold and retain all repatriated assets, accounts, or documents and prevent any transfer, disposition, or dissipation whatsoever of any such assets or documents; and File with the Court and serve on Plaintiff all bank statements, records, or documents held by financial institutions showing that repatriated assets are located within the US. Failure to comply with this Order within 7 days will result in this Court granting 406 Motion to Surrender Passport and 419 Motion for Contempt without further notice to the parties. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Connecticut corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:07-CV-02493-TLN-DB

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA’S MOTION
FOR REPATRIATION

SIDNEY B. DUNMORE, an individual;
SID DUNMORE TRUST DATED
FEBRUARY 28, 2003, a California trust;
SIDNEY B. DUNMORE, Trustee for Sid
Dunmore Trust Dated February 28, 2003;
DHI DEVELOPMENT, a California
corporation; WILLIAM H. NIEMI, an
individual; WILLIAM AND BETH
NIEMI, 1985 REVOCABLE FAMILY
TRUST, a California trust,
Defendant.

22

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Travelers Casualty and Surety

23

Company of America’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for an Order Requiring Defendant Sidney B.

24

Dunmore to Surrender his Passport (“Motion to Surrender Passport”) (ECF No. 406) and Motion

25

for Order of Contempt for Failure to Comply with Repatriation Order (“Motion for Contempt”)

26

(ECF No. 419). Defendants Sidney B. Dunmore, an individual, Sidney Dunmore Trust Dated

27

February 28, 2003, and Sidney Dunmore as Trustee for Sidney Dunmore Trust dated February 28,

28

2003, (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose both motions. (ECF Nos. 408 and 421.) Plaintiff filed
1

1

replies. (ECF Nos. 412 and 422.) The Court has received Defendants’ Notice of Compliance

2

(ECF No. 420) and accordingly supplements its previous December 8, 2017, Order Granting

3

Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Repatriation. (ECF No. 399.)

4

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

5

This Court entered judgment on March 29, 2017, against Defendants in the amount of

6

$15,599,237.28. (ECF No. 376.) After Plaintiff made several unanswered requests to Defendants

7

for payment and after learning Defendant Dunmore held assets overseas sufficient to satisfy the

8

judgment, Plaintiff requested the Court issue an order for repatriation of Defendants’ assets. (ECF

9

No. 383.) On December 11, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Repatriation (ECF

10

No. 383) and ordered Defendants to “repatriate assets held overseas, sufficient to satisfy the

11

judgment, to the United States, and to notify the Court of their compliance” within thirty (30)

12

days. (ECF No. 399 at 4.) Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Repatriation

13

Order (ECF No. 400), which the Court denied on August 16, 2018. (ECF No. 413.) In its order

14

denying reconsideration, the Court ordered Defendants to “promptly and timely repatriate funds”

15

in compliance with the Court’s previous Order. (ECF No. 413 at 4.)

16

In response to Defendants’ failure to comply with the Order, Plaintiff filed motions

17

requesting Defendant Dunmore surrender his passport and be held in contempt on January 8,

18

2018 and October 19, 2018, respectively. (ECF Nos. 406 and 419.) At the time of filing,

19

Defendants had not complied with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 399) to repatriate assets overseas,

20

sufficient to satisfy the judgment. On October 26, 2018, one week following Plaintiff’s Motion

21

for Contempt, Defendants filed a Notice of Compliance (“Notice”). (ECF No. 420.) The Notice

22

informed the Court that all assets subject to the Court’s Order have been repatriated back to the

23

United States, with a remaining balance, subject to an executed liquidation order, that will be

24

available mid-June 2019. (ECF No. 420.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ Notice is deficient, and

25

requests this Court find Defendants’ in contempt. (ECF No. 422 at 3–4.)

26

II.

ANALYSIS

27

Plaintiff filed motions requesting Defendant Dunmore surrender his passport and be held

28

in contempt (ECF Nos. 406 and 419) before Defendants filed the Notice (ECF No. 420) with the
2

1

Court. Prior to its Motion for Contempt, Plaintiff made numerous requests for payment from

2

Defendants. (ECF No. 419-1 at 2.) Defendants consistently ignored these requests, prompting

3

Plaintiff to ask for the Court’s assistance in obtaining judgment. Although Defendants have since

4

filed a Notice alleging compliance with the Order ordering repatriation of assets, the Court notes

5

that Defendants’ Notice failed to meet the thirty-day deadline that the Court reaffirmed in its

6

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 413 (reaffirming Order on August 17,

7

2018, requiring Defendants’ to comply within thirty (30) day); ECF No. 420 (Notice filed on

8

October 19, 2018).)
Moreover, the Notice is insufficient because it lacks supporting evidence, supplemented1

9
10

only by a declaration by Defendants’ attorney, Gary Gorski (“Gorski Declaration”) (ECF Nos.

11

421-1) and screen-shots of bank statements which show amounts well-below the amount needed

12

to satisfy the judgment. Plaintiff argues the Gorski Declaration is not admissible evidence

13

because he “lacks personal knowledge.” (ECF No. 422 at 5.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff and

14

finds a blanket assertion of personal knowledge does not suffice to qualify the declaration as

15

admissible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (stating a declaration must be “made on

16

personal knowledge, [and] set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the

17

declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”). Because the Gorski Declaration does

18

not set out facts to establish personal knowledge regarding, at minimum, Defendants’ assets held

19

overseas, the amount of these assets, and which assets have been repatriated, the Court places

20

little weight on Gorski’s statements related to Defendants’ bank accounts and repatriated assets.

21

See Cleveland v. Groceryworks.com, LLC, 200 F. Supp. 3d 924, 940 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (striking

22

all portions of Plaintiff’s declaration because, although it stated Plaintiff had personal knowledge,

23

it did not “set forth facts that would establish his personal knowledge”).
Without more, the Court only has Defendants’ October 26, 2018, Notice that declares that

24
25

assets sufficient to satisfy the judgment have been repatriated. Despite this Notice, Plaintiff has

26

apparently received no portion of these allegedly repatriated assets. (ECF No. 422 at 8.)

27
These supplements were not contained within the Notice, rather they were contained within Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt. (ECF No. 421.)
1

28

3

1

Admittedly, the Court agrees with Defendants that its Notice substantially complied with the

2

Court’s Order for Repatriation because the Court’s Order indicated that the Defendants must

3

“repatriate assets held overseas” and “notify the Court of their compliance.” (ECF No. 399 at 4.)

4

However, the Court is careful to note that “a party’s compliance with a court order cannot be

5

avoided by a ‘literal or hypertechnical reading of an order,’ for it is the ‘spirit and the purpose of

6

the [order], not merely its precise words, that must be obeyed.’” NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu

7

Television & Radio, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 115, 120 (W.D. La. 1984) (citing Nat’l Research Bureau,

8

Inc. v. Kucker, 481 F. Supp. 612, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)).
The “spirit and purpose” of the Court’s Order was to ensure Plaintiff received full

9
10

payment of the judgment as soon as possible. Id. Simply repatriating the assets back to the

11

United States without payment, does not comport with the spirit and purpose of the Order.

12

Defendants are well-aware that this Court issued a judgment in favor of Plaintiff nearly two years

13

ago and no payment has been made. The Court now clarifies for Defendants what actions must

14

be taken in addition to its prior Notice.

15

III.

16

It is HEREBY ORDERED that within seven (7) days following electronic filing of this

17

CONCLUSION

Order, Defendants shall:

18

A. Provide the Court and Plaintiff with a full accounting of all assets, accounts, or

19

documents in foreign countries currently held: (1) by them; (2) for their benefit; (3) in

20

trust by or for them, individually or jointly; or (4) under their direct or indirect control,

21

individually or jointly;
B. File with the Court2 and serve on Plaintiff a full accounting of all assets, accounts, or

22
23

documents that had been repatriated to the United States pursuant to this Court’s Order

24

for Repatriation (ECF No. 383). This includes all assets, accounts, or documents held:

25

(1) by them; (2) for their benefit; (3) in trust by or for them, individually or jointly; or

26

(4) under their direct or indirect control, individually or jointly;

27

///

28

2

Defendants may seek to file such documents under seal pursuant to Local Rules 140 and 141.

4

1
2

C. Hold and retain all repatriated assets, accounts, or documents and prevent any transfer,
disposition, or dissipation whatsoever of any such assets or documents; and

3

D. File with the Court and serve on Plaintiff all bank statements, records, or documents

4

held by financial institutions showing that repatriated assets, sufficient to satisfy the

5

judgment, are located within the United States.

6

Failure to comply with this Order within seven days will result in this Court granting

7

Plaintiff’s Motion to Surrender Passport (ECF No. 406) and Motion for Contempt (ECF No. 419)

8

without further notice to the parties. An order of contempt may include an order remanding

9

Defendant Dunmore into the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service to be imprisoned until he

10
11
12

complies with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2019

13
14
15

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5