Painters District Council 58 401(k) Trust Fund et al v. Quality Assured Industrial Coatings, LLC
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 77 ) in its entirety. The Court holds two transfers at issue void (up to the amount of Plaintiffs' judgment). The Court will defer the entry of judgment against Beth Johnes, personally, until afte r she has had 21 days to comply with the Court's turn over order. If she fails to comply with the order, the Court will enter judgment against her, personally, as a sanction. Debtor is ORDERED to turn over $64,065.75 to the Plaintiffs. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/28/2021. (drr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL 58
401(K) TRUST FUND, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-CV-1394-NJR-MAB
QUALITY ASSURED INDUSTRIAL
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 77) regarding a motion to avoid fraudulent
transfers filed by the Plaintiffs in this matter. (Doc. 68). The Report and Recommendation,
entered on September 8, 2021, recommends that the Court declare the two transfers at
issue void (up to the amount of Plaintiffs’ judgment) and order the debtor to turn over
$64,065.75 to the Plaintiffs. No objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed. 1
The Court received a letter from Mr. Tim Johnes on September 20, 2021. As explained in the
Court’s Order on August 4, 2021, however, “an LLC must be represented by counsel to litigate in
federal court and when an LLC fails to obtain legal counsel after a reasonable opportunity to do
so, the likely consequence will be the court baring the LLC from further participation in the
litigation.” (Doc. 76, p. 3); see also Nocula v. UGS Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 725 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“[c]orporations cannot appear pro se”) (citations omitted). Filing an objection to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation is an action that cannot be done pro se by a corporation, but
must be done by a corporation’s attorney. Accordingly, the letter does not serve as an objection
to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 77).
Page 1 of 2
Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
are made, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear error.
Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The undersigned has reviewed Magistrate Judge Beatty’s Report and
Recommendation and finds there is no clear error in his findings of fact or conclusions of
law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 77) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
This Court holds the two transfers at issue void (up to the amount of Plaintiffs’ judgment).
The Court will defer the entry of judgment against Beth Johnes, personally, until after she
has had 21 days to comply with the Court’s turn over order. If she fails to comply with
the order, the Court will enter judgment against her, personally, as a sanction.
Debtor is ORDERED to turn over $64,065.75 to the Plaintiffs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 28, 2021
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 2 of 2
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?