Tuttle v. Treasure Valley Marine, Inc., et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 39 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
KELLEY TUTTLE,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00314-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Vs.
TREASURE VALLEY MARINE, INC., an
Idaho corporation; BOHNENKAMPS
WHITEWATER CUSTOMS, INC., an Idaho
corporation; NIAGRA JET ADVENTURES,
LLC., a New York limited liability company;
CHRISTOPHER and RACHEL
BOHNENKAMP, married individuals;
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a
national banking association with its principal
place of business in Ohio, d/b/a KeyBank;
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 39). For the reasons
explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Tuttle originally brought several claims against various defendants. These claims
stem from the allegation that Tuttle entered into agreement to purchase a boat and trailer
from Treasure Valley Marine, Inc. (“TVM”) on February 5, 2014. Under the agreement,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
TVM was to fabricate a custom jet boat for $147,241, which was to be financed by a loan
from Defendant KeyBank for the full amount. KeyBank distributed the loan to TVM or
Bohnenkamps Whitewater Customs, Inc. (“BWC”), but the custom-built boat was not
delivered to Tuttle on the date agreed upon by Tuttle and TVM. Tuttle further alleged that
KeyBank had an agreement with Christopher Bohnenkamp, TVM, and BWC wherein
KeyBank would pay those defendants a “kickback” when they referred individuals to
KeyBank to finance custom boats. He also claimed that the loan distributed to TVM was
not used to fabricate the financed boat, but instead was invested in a new Bohnenkamp
enterprise, Niagara Jet Adventures LLC (“NJA”).
On these allegations, Tuttle asserted claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) violation
of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (“ICPA”), (3) fraud, (4) conspiracy to violate the
ICPA and defraud Tuttle, (5) aiding and abetting fraud and vioaltions of the ICPA, (6)
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Idaho
Racketeering Act (collectively “RICO Acts”) by committing mail and wire fraud (“RICO
claims”), and (7) conspiracy to violate the RICO Acts. After a first round of motions to
dismiss, the Court dismissed the Complaint, but gave Tuttle leave to amend. He filed his
Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded with another set of motions to
dismiss.
About that same time, Bohnenkamp was indicted on several counts of wire and
bank fraud related to the facts of this case. That case is also pending before this Court.
Trial is set to commence on May 8, 2017. Bohnenkamp is represented by the same
attorney in both this case and the criminal matter.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
ANALYSIS
“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). To
determine whether it should exercise its discretion to stay a case, the district court
considers: (1) whether staying the action serves judicial economy; and (2) the potential
prejudice to the parties. See, e.g., Single Chip Sys. Corp. v. Intermec IP Corp., 495
F.Supp.2d 1052, 1057 (S.D.Cal.2007).
Here, Defendant Bohnenkamp is scheduled to commence a 3-week criminal trial
defending more than 25 counts of wire and bank fraud in approximately two months. A
district court may stay a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a parallel criminal
proceeding where the interests of justice require it. Keating v. Office of Thrift
Supervision¸45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision whether to stay the civil
proceeding should be made in light of the particular circumstances of the case. Id. Factors
to consider include: (1) the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are
implicated; (2) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation
or any particular aspect of it, including potential prejudice of a delay; (3) the burden
which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (4) the
convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial
resources; (5) the interests of non-parties; and (6) the public’s interest. Id. (Internal
citation omitted).
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
As noted above, Bohnenkamp is scheduled to commence his criminal trial in front
of this Court in approximately two months. As the sole owner of BWC and TVM, he
faces potential Fifth Amendment issues. Counsel – who represents Bohnenkamp in both
the civil and criminal matters – notes that complying with the discovery schedule in this
civil case directly exposes him to potential liability in the criminal case. And the interests
of TVM, BWC and Niagara in full discovery may be jeopardized when Bohnenekamp
asserts his right to remain silent and refuses to assist in the civil case.
Similarly, the defendants’ ability to defend themselves could be impaired if
Bohnenkamp invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege. The burden on the plaintiff of
staying the case for approximately three months is outweighed by the defendants being
able to assert a full defense. Likewise, the burden on defense counsel and the Court
warrants a stay. Both defense counsel and the Court can better address the criminal
matter without having to simultaneously address likely discovery disputes that will come
up because of Bohnenkamp’s Fifth Amendment rights. Trying to balance those potential
discovery disputes with Bohnenekamp’s rights in the criminal matter is not a good use of
defense counsel’s preparation time or judicial resources.
Finally, the Court does not find that any interests of non-parties would be
negatively affected by staying this case for three months. And the public’s interest in
seeing the criminal matter proceed without delay or complication from this civil matter is
in the public’s best interest. Accordingly, the Court will stay this matter until after the
criminal trial is finished.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
ORDER
1. Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. 39) is GRANTED.
DATED: March 2, 2017
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
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?