OneWest Bank, FSB v. Farrar et al

Filing 223

ORDER ADOPTING Magistrate Judge's 208 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION To Grant Plaintiff's Motion For An Order For Defendant Christopher Salem To Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held In Civil Contempt For Violating The Court's Order, and For An Order To Enforce Judgment For Specific Action. Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 02/18/14. (gab, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
ONEWEST BANK, FSB,,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J RANDALL FARRAR;
CHRISTOPHER SALEM; WAYNE
WAGNER; MARY WAGNER; LOT
48A LLC; POOL PRO, INC.;
CREDIT ASSOCIATES OF MAUI,
LTD.; JOHN AND MARY DOES 120; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20;
DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20;
OTHER ENTITIES 1-20,,
Defendants.
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 12-00108 ACK-KSC

ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT
CHRISTOPHER SALEM TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD
NOT BE HELD IN CIVIL
CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING
THE COURT’S ORDER, AND FOR
AN ORDER TO ENFORCE
JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC
ACTION

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Order for Defendant to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Held in
Civil Contempt for Violating the Court’s Order having been filed and served on all
parties on January 10, 2014,1 the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendant’s
1

The Court notes that, in a January 9, 2014 order, the Ninth Circuit stated that Defendant
Salem’s pending appeal of this Court’s Order Adopting the Finding and Recommendation to
Enforce Settlement Agreement does not divest this District Court of jurisdiction to supervise
compliance with that order. See Order Denying Motion for Emergency Review of
Jurisdiction/Motion for Stay of Proceeding in District Court, One West Bank, FSB v.
Christopher Salem, Civ. No. 13-17447, Doc. No. 12 at 2 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014) (citing Meinhold
v. United States, 34 F.3d 1469, 1480 n.14 (9th Cir. 1994)). The Ninth Circuit further found that

Motion for Reconsideration of the Findings and Recommendation having been
entered on January 29, 2014, and no objections having been filed by any party as to
the Order denying the reconsideration motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C)
and Local Rule 74.2, the Findings and Recommendations are adopted as the
opinion and order of this Court.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 18, 2014

________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Senior United States District Judge

OneWest Bank FSB v. Farrar et al., Civ. No. 12-00108 ACK-KSC, Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Finding and
Recommendation to Grant Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order for Defendant Christopher Salem to Show Cause Why He
Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt

Salem failed to make a showing sufficient to warrant the issuance of a stay of proceedings in this
District Court, and noted that Salem will have the opportunity to appeal any contempt order or
sanction that issues from this District Court.
2

The Court notes that it agrees that a coercive sanction of $200 per calendar day until
Defendant Salem fully complies with the conditions of the 11/19/13 Order Adopting the
Findings and Recommendation is appropriate given the character and magnitude of the harm
threatened by Defendant Salem’s continued contumacy. Specifically, the Court notes that,
through his continued refusal to comply with the conditions of the 11/19/13 Order, Salem is,
among other things, preventing OneWest from exercising its right to dispose of one of the
properties at issue, and depriving Wayne and Mary Wagner of a substantial amount of money
owed to them under the parties’ settlement agreement: pursuant to the 11/19/13 Order, Salem is
required to pay $50,000.00 for their release of the lien on the Hui Road property, as well as
$575,000.00 for their lien on the Lower Road property. (See Doc. No. 171 at 6-7.) Further, in
light of Salem’s representations that he would comply with the settlement, and his utter failure to
do so, it appears that coercive sanctions are necessary to ensure compliance.