Iguacu, Inc. v. Filho

Filing 432

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/25/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IGUAÇU, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ASSIGNMENT ORDER

ANTONIO CABRERA MANO FILHO,

15

No. C 09-0380 RS

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16
17

The parties were previously ordered to meet and confer as to the form of a proposed

18

assignment order, and to submit separate proposals under explanatory cover in the event they could

19

not reach agreement. The parties submitted their proposals and letters containing substantive

20

argument, via email directly to the Court’s law clerk. To ensure the record is complete, the

21

correspondence will be efiled in conjunction with this order. The remaining points of controversy

22

between the parties are only the degree of specificity required in identifying the third party entities

23

from whom payments might come, and whether the order should apply only to monies due and

24

payable in this District.

25

Plaintiff has adequately shown that there is no requirement that the order provide a greater

26

degree of specificity than it has proposed as to the identity of the third parties. Plaintiff is also

27

correct that the order need not be limited to monies payable in this district. Plaintiff’s proposed

28

form of order, however, is arguably ambiguous as to whether it would apply even to monies due and

1

payable outside the United States, as long as the payors were “located or subject to jurisdiction” in

2

the U.S. Such an order would be overbroad, as plaintiff has not shown the relevant consideration is

3

the location of the payor, or its amenability to U.S. jurisdiction, as opposed to the location of the

4

property itself. Plaintiff has offered no authority, for example, that an obligation due and payable in

5

Brazil could properly be made subject of an assignment order merely because the payor was a U.S.-

6

based entity, or even more attenuated, a Brazilian entity “subject to jurisdiction” here. That said, it

7

appears self-evident that a payment issued in the United States is property within the permissible

8

jurisdictional purview of an assignment order, even if the payment instrument is then transmitted

9

overseas.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Accordingly, while plaintiff’s motion for an assignment order is hereby granted, the
language shall reflect elements of both parties’ proposals:

12
13

Plaintiff Iguaçu, Inc. (“Iguaçu”) is hereby assigned all or any part of a right to

14

payment, whether or not the right is conditioned on future developments, due or to

15

become due to Defendant Antonio Cabrera Mano Filo (“Cabrera”), directly or

16

indirectly from Archer Daniels Midland Company (“ADM”), including, without

17

limitation, subsidiaries, affiliates or entities controlled by ADM to the extent such

18

payments are due, payable, or issued in the United States. This assignment shall not

19

apply to rights to payment in excess of the amount of Iguaçu’s Amended Judgment

20

against Cabrera which totals $1,359,509.98 through August 24, 2014.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: 9/25/14
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2