West Hills Farms, LLC v. ClassicStar, LLC et al
Filing
885
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) (2587 in 5:07-cv-00353-JMH-REW, 866 in 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW) MOTION Motion For Declaration That Certain Property (1) Is Owned By Judgment Debtor John Parrott Or (2) Was Fraudulently Transferred By Judgment is DENIED; (2) (2597 in 5:07-cv-00353-JMH-REW, 875 in 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW) MOTION to Continue and extend time to file Reply to obtain further evidence in support of motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 2/29/2016.Associated Cases: 5:07-cv-00353-JMH-REW, 5:06-cv-00243-JMH-REW(STC)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRCT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
IN RE CLASSICSTAR MARE LEASE
LITIGATION
WEST HILLS FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CLASSICSTAR, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL No. 1877
Master File:
Civil Action No. 07-353JMH
Civil Action No.
5:06-CV-243
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
***
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for a
Declaration that Certain Property Is Owned by Judgment Debtor John
Parrott or was Fraudulently Transferred by Judgment [DE 866], to
which Defendant John Parrott objects [DE 872]. In lieu of a Reply,
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Continue [DE 875] consideration of
that Motion for Declaration in order that they might collect more
evidence through discovery to support their request for relief
rather than litigate the matter piecemeal.
For the reasons which
follow, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Declaration will be denied, and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue will be denied as moot.
Plaintiffs believe that Defendant John Parrott has used his
legal training to manipulate his financial affairs to hide his
assets from his judgment creditors, including transferring funds
to his ex-wife, Judy I. Parrott, and Jude Investments, LLC, during
the course of this and other litigation concerning Defendant
Parrott’s involvement with the conspiracy alleged in this action
and which was the subject of criminal proceedings.
Plaintiffs
seek a declaration that certain money and securities transferred
by Defendant Parrott to his ex-wife and Jude Investments were
fraudulently conveyed such that Defendant Parrott is the owner of
the property and the funds should be subject to execution in this
matter.
Plaintiffs seek, in the alternative, a declaration that
the property was transferred for no consideration and the transfers
are voidable as they violate the rights of Defendant Parrott’s
creditors.
Plaintiffs rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and the
Court’s inherent authority to enforce its own judgment to provide
this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.
Certainly,
as
they
point
“ancillary
jurisdiction
out,
over
federal
a
broad
district
range
of
courts
have
supplementary
proceedings involving third parties to assist in the protection
and
enforcement
of
federal
judgments
–
including
attachment,
mandamus, garnishment, and the prejudgment avoidance of fraudulent
conveyances.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 351 and 356 (1996)
(citations
omitted)
(“We
have
reserved
the
use
of
ancillary
jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of a
2
federal
court’s
inherent
power
to
enforce
its
judgments.”).
Arguably, the Court would have jurisdiction over Defendant John
Parrott in an action for relief as described and might, if asked,
have jurisdiction over his ex-wife and Jude Investments.
There
is, however, no reason to make that determination because the cause
of action has not been brought against those parties before this
Court.
The
Court
appreciates
that
Plaintiffs
would
enjoy
the
convenience of obtaining relief from this Court, before which the
judgment it seeks to enforce was obtained, but ultimately agrees
with Defendant Parrot that, under the circumstances a motion under
Rule 69 cannot provide the relief that Plaintiffs seek.
First and
foremost, Judy Parrott and Jude Investments are not parties to
this action nor does the Court immediately see how they might be
brought before this Court in the absence of a new action.
As
Parrott points out, “fraudulent transfer” is, in its own right, a
cause of action in Kentucky and other jurisdictions, including
Florida and the U.S. Virgin Islands, under which law Defendant
theorizes
that
Plaintiff’s
might
seek
redress.
Even
if
a
declaratory action founded on such a cause of action could provide
the appropriate relief, this Court may “may declare the rights and
other
legal
relations
of
any
interested
party
seeking
such
declaration” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 only “upon the filing of
an appropriate pleading.”
28 U.S.C. § 2201; see Federal Rule of
3
Civil
Procedure
complaint,
7
answer
(listing
to
a
types
of
complaint,
“pleadings,”
answer
to
a
limited
to
counterclaim
designated as a counterclaim, answer to a crossclaim, third-party
complaint, answer to a third-party complaint, and reply to an
answer); see, e.g., Ledbetter v. Knox Cty., Tenn, No. 3:05-CV-248,
2006
WL
354200,
at
*1
(E.D.
Tenn.
Feb.
15,
2006)
(denying
plaintiff’s motion for declaratory relief because no “pleading”
had been filed seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2201).
Absent an amendment to the Complaint or a request for relief
through some other appropriate pleading, which Plaintiffs do not
seek, this Court will not entertain their request for relief.
Nor
does the Court suggest that it would look favorably upon a request
for amendment.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
that the Motion for a Declaration that Certain Property
Is Owned by Judgment Debtor John Parrott or Was Fraudulently
Transferred by Judgment [DE 866] is DENIED.
(2)
that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue [DE 875] and to
extend time to file a Reply in order to obtain further evidence in
support of its motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
This the 29th day of February, 2016.
4
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?