Smith et al v. ComputerTraining.com, Incorporated et al

Filing 226

ORDER Upholding Magistrate Judge's Order and Denying Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANDREW SMITH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

CASE NO: 10-11490
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

COMPUTERTRAINING.COM, INC.,
ET AL.,

Defendants.
/
ORDER UPHOLDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY
This matter is before the Court on objections by garnishee defendant, Hartford
Casualty Insurance Company (“Hartford”) to the September 26, 2014 Opinion and Order
by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen (Doc. #212). That Order directed Hartford to
produce certain documents, provide a privilege log, and comply with a specified
procedure for discovery. This Court UPHOLDS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s September
26th Order. Hartford’s Motion to Stay September 26, 2014 Order of Magistrate (Doc.
#213) is DENIED.
Hartford objects on the following grounds: (1) the subpoena is vague and
overbroad; (2) the subpoena requests are irrelevant; (3) underwriting files are not
discoverable; (4) reserves information is not discoverable; (5) reinsurance documents
are not discoverable; (6) documents other than the liability insurance policies are not

1

discoverable; (7) the privilege log requirements are overly broad; (8) no rule requires
certified or sworn copies of policies; (9) order to designate a corporate representative to
testify in response to a subpoena that does not seek deposition testimony is error; (10)
no rule requires a party to create an affidavit; and (11) the subpoena is procedurally
deficient on several grounds. Hartford also says it is unclear whether this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the garnishment action.
A district court may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine a pretrial
non-dispositive matter under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A). A district court may reconsider
the matter if it is shown to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see Hagaman v. Comm’r of Internal
Revenue, 958 F.2d 684, 690 (6th Cir. 1992). The district court is not entitled to reverse
the finding simply because it would have decided the matter differently. Anderson v.
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). If two permissible views of the evidence
exist, the factfinder’s decision between them cannot be “clearly erroneous.” Id. at 74.
Hartford says it is unclear whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. This
issue was not raised in the motions considered by Magistrate Judge Whalen. In the
motion before this Court, neither party briefed whether there is diversity jurisdiction over
the garnishment action. Plaintiffs, who bear the burden to establish federal jurisdiction,
did not respond to Hartford’s suggestion that jurisdiction may be lacking.
The Court finds that it had diversity jurisdiction over the underlying case under 28
2

U.S.C. §1332(d) and is satisfied it has jurisdiction over this garnishment action under 28
U.S.C. §1367.
Subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party, or by the
court itself. Franzel v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 959 F.2d 628, 630 (6th Cir. 1992). A district court
must have jurisdiction over the primary lawsuit before it may assert jurisdiction over
ancillary claims. Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 355 (1996) (no jurisdiction over an
attempt to collect judgment by piercing the corporate veil when there is a lack of factual
nexus between the two actions and the subsequent lawsuit includes new theories of
liability). Ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised “(1) to permit disposition by a single
court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and
(2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings,
vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Id. at 354. Ancillary jurisdiction is a
common law doctrine largely codified in 28 U.S.C. §1367. Id. at 354 n.5.
The Supreme Court’s discussion in Peacock includes garnishment within the
scope of a court’s enforcement power:
Without jurisdiction to enforce a judgment entered by a federal court, “the
judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate to the
purposes for which it was conferred by the Constitution.” In defining that
power, we have approved the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction over a
broad range of 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.
Condaire, Inc. v. Allied Piping, Inc., 286 F.3d 353, 357 (6th Cir. 2002) quoting Peacock
v. Thomas, 516 U.S. at 356. (citation omitted).
In support of its contention that jurisdiction might be lacking, Hartford provides

3

two cases: Siding & Insulation Co. v. Acuity Mut. Ins. Co., 754 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.
2014) and Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 143 (6th Cir. 2003). Siding involved an
insurance coverage dispute that arose following a class action. The company,
Beachwood, faced millions of dollars in potential statutory damages. Siding, 754 F.3d
at 368. Beachwood and its insurer, Acuity Mutual Insurance Co., (“Acuity”), settled with
the class representative for four million dollars. Id. The Settlement stipulated that a
separate action would resolve a two million dollar coverage dispute between
Breachwood and Acuity. Id. Subsequently, the class representative (“Siding”) brought
a declaratory judgment action against Acuity under the insurance policy. Id. The district
court granted Acuity’s motion for summary judgment, denying coverage. Id. Siding
appealed.
The Sixth Circuit found there was no diversity jurisdiction because the amount in
controversy was insufficient. Id. at 369. Additionally, there was no supplemental
jurisdiction because of substantive differences between the two disputes and because
the final judgment of the class action suit extinguished the court’s ability to hear claims
asserting interdependent facts. Id. at 374, n.3. The insurance company’s interest in the
subject matter of the case depended on “future events,” the success of the plaintiffs’
declaratory judgment action and the determination of obligations under the insurance
contract. Id. at 374. Since there was no allegation the settlement agreement had been
violated, the Sixth Circuit determined that it was not an enforcement action. Id. at 374.
Unlike Siding, this is an enforcement action. Hartford’s liability is not contingent
on the success of future events. If Hartford is liable, its liability arose at the time of the
judgment. Accordingly, it was appropriate for Magistrate Judge Whalen to order the
4

disclosure of relevant insurance information at this stage of discovery.
The second case Hartford relies upon is Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d at 143. In
Hudson, the plaintiff filed writs of garnishment against the city to collect upon a consent
judgment against two police officers. Id. at 139. The Sixth Circuit found no rationale for
exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law indemnity claim against the city. Id. at
143. The court reasoned that the claim was asserted after the city was dismissed from
the case and after individual defendants had settled. Id. Additionally, there were no
“factually intertwined issues” and neither the convenience of the litigants nor judicial
economy justified jurisdiction. Id. The garnishment claim sought liability on the basis of
an indemnity agreement between the officers and the city; a legal theory entirely
independent from the original action. Id.
Hudson acknowledged garnishment actions sometimes fall within ancillary
jurisdiction. Id. at 144. The Sixth Circuit has not fully clarified jurisdiction over
garnishment actions, but decisions from the Third Circuit are instructive and indicate
merely disputing liability is insufficient to divest the court of jurisdiction. IFC Interconsult,
AG v. Safeguard Int'l Partners, LLC., 438 F.3d 298, 315 (3rd Cir. 2006) (jurisdiction
exists in garnishment proceeding to pay an existing judgment on a party alleged in good
faith to be secondarily liable). The Third Circuit reasoned that if it were otherwise,
“there could never be jurisdiction over any garnishment action, as it would always be
based on a new, contractual theory of liability.” Id. at 312.
The Court concludes this is an enforcement action of a federal judgment. As the
Third Circuit noted, “Rule 69 does not contemplate that the holders of federal judgments
must resort to State tribunals for their enforcement.” Id. at 310.
5

The rest of Hartford’s objections are without merit. Magistrate Judge Whalen
considered the parties’ arguments and determined that the information sought by
Plaintiffs is relevant and discoverable. This Court finds his Order is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
The Court UPHOLDS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Order. Hartford’s Motion to
Stay September 26, 2014 Order of Magistrate (Doc. #213) is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: December 29, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
December 29, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

6