Osborne v. C&D Complete Business Solutions, Inc.

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 68 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 1/13/2014. Mailed to pro se defendants C&D Complete Business Solutions, Sonya Cummings by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOSEPH OSBORNE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C&D COMPLETE BUSINESS
)
SOLUTIONS, INC., and
)
SONYA CUMMINGS
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 11-2335-KGG

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 68.)
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 56) was granted on April 9, 2013
(Doc. 60). Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
(Doc. 64) on June 25, 2013 (Doc. 65).
Plaintiff subsequently served post-judgment discovery on Defendants, to
which Defendants did not respond, resulting in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
(Doc. 66.) The Court granted that Motion to Compel as uncontested, ordering
Defendants to respond to the discovery on or before September 24, 2013. (See
Doc. 67, text Order.) Defendants failed to do so, which resulted in the present
motion, in which Plaintiff contends that Defendants should be found in contempt

for “their failure to comply with this Court’s order” compelling responses to postjudgment discovery. (See Doc. 68.)
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for two reasons. First, the Court
finds that the procedure used by Plaintiff is impractical and ultimately will be
ineffective. Finding a defunct corporation to be in contempt, and ordering it to pay
fines, for the failure to respond to discovery following a default judgment is not a
practical solution to Plaintiff’s continued inability to compile the requested
information. Second, the Court has serious concerns that the relief requested by
Plaintiff would run afoul of the bankruptcy Order and Stay currently in effect
regarding individual Defendant Sonya Cummings. The Court notes that said
individual Defendant has indicated in court filings that she is doing business as C
& D Complete Business Solutions, the corporate Defendant in this matter.
(See Doc. 69.)
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 68) is DENIED for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 13th of January, 2014.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge
2