West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts Geostar Corporation, Ferguson, and Robinson's Emergency Motion to Vacate Temporary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Stay the Temporary Injunction and Hearing (818) in case 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW, (2528) in case 5:07-cv-00353-JMH-REW[DE 818] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; (2) That paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Court's August 16, 2013, Order, (816) in case 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW, are VACATED; (3) That all post-judgment discovery disputes in this matter are REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier for all necessary proceedings and orders for resolution. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/23/2013. Associated Cases: 5:07-cv-00353-JMH-REW, 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW(STC)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
WEST HILLS FARMS, LLC,
CLASSICSTAR, LLC, et al.,
Civil Case No.
MDL NO. 1877
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Corporation, Tony Ferguson, and Thom Robinson’s Emergency Motion
to Vacate Temporary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Stay the
adequately advised, concludes that it has authority to enter the
injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs if, ultimately, the
presented to the Court.
Accordingly, it declines to afford the
relief requested by Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, at least in
part, as set forth below.
First and foremost, this matter is sought and litigated
Defendants are judgment debtors.
The Court does not believe
that Plaintiffs’ most recent and post-judgment motion actually
asks this Court to substitute equitable relief for the money
obtaining the legal relief to which they are now entitled to by
virtue of this Court’s judgment -- execution on the judgment by
point to afford them meaningful relief.
They argue that the
legal ability to execute on the judgment, alone, is insufficient
to afford them relief because they believe Defendants seek to
waste, dissipate, or secret their assets in order to frustrate
Plaintiffs’ ability to recover on the judgment obtained.
serve as no more than a temporary stop-gap measure to insure
that no waste or dissipation of assets frustrates their efforts
to obtain any legal remedy to which they are due.
In this post-judgment context and on the request for relief
made by Plaintiffs, it is irrelevant whether Plaintiffs could
have obtained equitable relief on their claim instead of a money
The fact of the matter is that the money judgment was
effectuate that order of judgment.
Clearly, this Court may not
have jurisdiction over the assets sought, depending on where
they are located, but it has jurisdiction over the defendants
who may waste, dissipate, or secret those assets.
against the imposition of equitable relief in the pre-judgment
arguments no longer apply.
The Court reaches no conclusion on
whether a pre-judgment equitable remedy in the form of an asset
freeze was available to Plaintiffs in this matter.
Ultimately, the Court concludes that it has authority to
jurisdiction” as set forth above.
See, e.g., Meyers v. Moody,
723 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. 1984) (approving use of post-judgment
dissipation, or transfer of assets by [judgment debtor had] a
Thus, the question for this Court is not whether it may enter a
preliminary injunction freezing assets, for the Court concludes
that it does, but whether it should do so in this instance.
preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and demonstrate
their “(1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether
would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the
public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary
McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir.
2012) (citing American Imaging Services, Inc. v. Eagle–Picher
Indus., Inc. (In re Eagle–Picher Indus., Inc.), 963 F.2d 855,
858 (6th Cir.1992); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415
U.S. 423, 441 (1974).
At the end of the day or at least by the end of the hearing
scheduled in this matter, Plaintiffs must demonstrate to this
dissipation, or secreting of assets or that there is a real
Plaintiffs’ the relief due under the judgment obtained from this
While the burden is on Plaintiffs to do so, Defendants
are welcome to short cut the process of litigating this matter
by providing some sort of assurance acceptable to Plaintiffs
that they will not waste, dissipate, or secret their assets,
whether through posting some sort of bond or voluntarily placing
assets in an appropriate account, etc.
Further, with respect to some parties’ failure to respond
adequately to post-judgment discovery requests, Defendants have
provided a response to the Plaintiffs’ argument that they have
indicating that they believe they are justified in responding as
The Court shall refer that and any other post-
judgment discovery dispute in this matter to Magistrate Judge
Robert E. Wier for all necessary proceedings and orders for
resolution in due time.
While the Court still expects that the
parties will engage in discovery in good faith, the Court shall
vacate paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of its August 16, 2013, Order [DE
816], allowing the issue of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel raised
in their August 7, 2013, Order to remain pending until such time
Plaintiffs’ Motion and Defendant’s response to the Magistrate
Judge for resolution.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
Injunction or, in the Alternative, Stay the Temporary Injunction
and Hearing [DE 818] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
That paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the Court’s August 16,
2013, Order [DE 816] are VACATED;
matter are REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier for all
necessary proceedings and orders for resolution.
This the 23rd day of August, 2013.
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?