Detroit Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds v. Howard Pingston Company et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting 99 Motion for Substituted Service of amended order for examination of judgment debtor and restraining transfer of certain property supplementary to judgment. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TRUSTEES OF THE DETROIT CARPENTERS FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS, Case No. 08-11856 Hon. George Caram Steeh Mag. Judge Steven D. Pepe Plaintiffs, v HOWARD PINGSTON COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, and HOWARD PINGSTON, an individual, Defendants. / ORDER AUTHORIZING SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF AMENDED ORDER FOR EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR AND RESTRAINING TRANSFER OF CERTAIN PROPERTY SUPPLEMENTARY TO JUDGMENT THIS MATTER having come on to be heard upon the Ex-Parte Motion for Substituted Service of Amended Order for Examination of Judgment Debtor and Restraining Transfer of Certain Property Supplementary to Judgment, and the Court having reviewed the same and finding good cause for the entry of this Order pursuant to Federal Rule 4(e)(1), and MCR 2.105(l), and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this Court’s Amended Order for Examination of Judgment Debtor and Restraining Transfer of Certain Property Supplementary to Judgment requiring the appearance of Howard Pingston at the offices of Erman, Teicher, Zucker & Freedman, P.C., 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 444, Southfield, Michigan 48034, may be served upon Howard Pingston by firmly affixing a copy of said Order to the premises at 23258 Oak St., Dearborn, Michigan 48128, and by forwarding copies of same to said address, certified mail, return receipt requested, and first class mail, in plain white envelopes with no return address. DATED: July 25, 2016 s/George Caram Steeh U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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?