MCF AF, LLC v. Flechas
ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set out in the Order. Flechas is directed to submit updated financial records on March 1, 2018, for in camera review. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on November 27, 2017. (SP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
MCF AF, LLC, AND MCS CAPTIAL, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-722-DPJ-FKB
EDUARDO A. FLECHAS, FLECHAS & ASSCOIATES, P.A.,
AND THE FLECHAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
Defendant Eduardo Flechas asks the Court to dismiss this contempt action against him,
arguing that it is impossible for him to pay back the almost $400,000 he spent in violation of an
Asset Freeze Order. Having considered Flechas’s testimony at the hearing, his account records,
and the parties’ briefing, the Court disagrees—the contempt order will remain in place.
On October 19, 2015, Eduardo Flechas agreed to be held in contempt and promised to
pay back approximately $400,000, which he spent in violation of the Court’s Asset Freeze Order.
Order [1-1] at 2. If he failed to purge the contempt within thirty (30) days, Flechas agreed to
submit himself to incarceration. Id. at 3.
In the beginning, Flechas made payments toward the contempt judgment, and the Court
granted his repeated requests to postpone incarceration. Between October 20, 2015, and January
6, 2016, Flechas paid $64,391.48 into the Court’s registry.1 But then Flechas’s payments stalled,
and the Court declined to further delay the inevitable. Beginning July 22, 2016, the Court
See 3:13-CV-621-DPJ-FKB Oct. 20, 2015 ($10,391.48); Nov. 18, 2015 ($10,000); Dec. 16,
2015 ($25,000); Jan. 6, 2016 ($19,000).
ordered Flechas to submit himself to intermittent incarceration every other weekend at the
Madison County Detention Center.
Since incarceration commenced, Flechas has made one $5,000 payment into the Court’s
registry.2 And on March 16, 2017, the Court credited Flechas’s contempt obligation in the
amount of $35,842.29, for funds which he had paid into the bankruptcy estate. Order . To
date, Flechas has received contempt credit for just over $105,000.
In his initial motion, Flechas represented that he had reached settlement agreements with
all plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit and argued that dismissal of the severed contempt action
would allow the action to be “fully and finally concluded.” Def.’s Mot.  at 2. He asked the
Court to dismiss the severed contempt action, vacate its Order of Confinement, and return his
MCS responded in opposition, arguing that (1) the confinement was producing the
desired effect (repayment), (2) Flechas has yet to fully purge his contempt, and (3) Flechas, a
licensed attorney and experienced businessman, agreed to an even more stringent confinement
than the Court ordered. Pl.’s Resp.  at 1. In reply, Flechas changed course, saying he does
not have the ability or funds required to purge himself of contempt, so compliance is
“impossible.” Def.’s Reply  at 2.3 This representation prompted the Court to order Flechas
Flechas made this payment on August 12, 2016, bringing the total paid into the registry to
In his reply, Flechas argued that it was “not equitable to continue to mandate that [he] remit the
remaining sum in question or otherwise face incarceration and home detention.” Def.’s Reply
 at 2–3. At the hearing, Flechas clarified that he is seeking relief only from the incarceration
and home confinement and understands that he would still be liable for the $290,000. Tr.  at
to submit updated financial records and to set the matter for a hearing. The parties filed
supplemental briefing following the August 16, 2017 hearing, and the Court is prepared to rule.
Courts have “the inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through
civil contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). Here, Flechas agreed to
be held in civil contempt for violating the Court’s Asset Freeze Order. He promised to repay the
money he spent and submit himself to incarceration “until such time as the contempt is fully
purged.” Order [1-1] at 4. This arrangement presents the classic case of the contemnor carrying
the keys to his own prison. United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 331
But Flechas now asserts that compliance is “impossible.” Def.’s Reply  at 2. In a
civil-contempt proceeding, a defendant may assert an inability to comply, and where compliance
is impossible, the Court may opt not to proceed with the civil contempt action. United States v.
Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). “It is settled, however, that in raising this defense, the
defendant has a burden of production.” Id.
To substantiate his claim that he is financially unable to repay the money, Flechas
testified at the motion hearing that he has tried to “economize” by moving to a less expensive
home, selling jewelry, transferring his children to a different private school, cancelling his health
insurance, wearing machine-washable (versus dry-clean-only) clothing, limiting lunches out, and
keeping a vehicle with over 200,000 miles (versus replacing it). Tr.  at 3–5. He said he has
undergone “a lifestyle change” and believes he has not spent money “foolishly.” Id. at 9.
MCS challenged this assessment. It pointed out that Flechas had chosen to rent a fourbedroom, 2800-square-foot home in Northeast Jackson for $2,300 per month, while lessexpensive homes in the area, or in nearby Madison or Rankin County, were available. Id. at 11–
12. MCS also explored the cost of private school for Flechas’s three children, which Flechas
estimated at $800 per month. Id. at 13. MCS suggested that public school in either Madison or
Rankin County would have been another cost-saving alternative, but Flechas said he was not
interested in sending his children to public school. Id. at 14–15.
Of course, Flechas can decide where to live and where to send his children to school. But
he is before the Court now claiming that it is impossible to make any payments toward the
contempt judgment. That’s a stretch. He has made adjustments to his lifestyle, but there is
arguably still room to decrease his expenses even further. Also, many of the cost-saving changes
were just recently implemented, so only time will tell whether these adjustments free up
additional monies to be paid toward the contempt judgment. It makes sense to let the measures
he has employed in an effort to save money play out; perhaps Flechas will be in a position to pay
toward the judgment.
Similarly, Flechas’s financial records from February 14 to August 14, 2017, are peppered
with discretionary expenses, beyond basic living expenses such as housing, groceries, and
utilities. Fin. R.  (Sealed). For example, Flechas repeatedly spent in excess of $75 at
multiple clothing stores (Journeys KIDZ $117; Old Navy $113; Banana Republic $89; J. Crew
$85, $86; Belk $83). At other times, he spent over $200 in a single transaction at various retail
locations (Best Buy $282; J. Crew $208, $225; Gap $214; Wal-Mart $210, $220; Home Depot
$287; Amazon $365). He spent over $600 at hair salons and a beauty-supply store
(WaveLengths $243, Lacru $77, Sephora $327). Adding up these examples, Flechas spent over
$3,000 on discretionary purchases in a six-month period.4
In addition, Flechas made large recurring payments totaling almost $5,000 to credit card
companies, suggesting that additional purchases are being made that are not reflected in the bank
account records (Target Card $184, $183, $169, $179, $174, $176; First Premier Card $100,
$200, $188, $364, $400, $400, $490; Credit One Bank $100, $113, $100, $400; Discover Card
$300, $200, $250, $200, $131). Combined with the expenses mentioned above, Flechas spent
over $8,000 in six months. While some of that is surely attributable to legitimate needs, Flechas
has not made a single payment toward the contempt judgment since August 2016.5
Flechas’s testimony and his financial records signal that he is willing to make some
changes to cut his expenses, but he is willing to go only so far. In essence, it appears that
Flechas would prefer to submit himself to intermittent incarceration than make spending
decisions that allow him to pay his debt. These are choices that Flechas is free to make, but
these choices do no support a finding that he is incapable of continuing to pay towards his
contempt judgment. And it bears repeating that Flechas agreed to submit to 24/7 incarceration—
the Court’s order of intermittent incarceration is substantially less onerous. Flechas has not
shown that compliance is impossible; his motion to dismiss is denied at this time.
This list is not exhaustive. The records also contain numerous purchases below $75 to retailers
such as Target, Hobby Lobby, Academy Sports, Gander Mountain, Barnes and Noble, and
Turkoyz, which are not included in this calculation.
Flechas did receive “contempt credit” for monies paid into the bankruptcy estate in March
2017. But nine months have now passed, and he has not made any progress in paying down the
EF Properties, LLC
During the hearing, Flechas testified under oath that he had disclosed all of his assets to
the Court and essentially owned nothing. Tr.  at 41–43.
(By the Court) All right. Do you have—and I’m going to be as broad as
(Flechas) Yes, sir.
—any other asset, you know, account by any name, you know whether it’s
a 401(k), whether it’s, you know, whatever that either you, your wife or any of
these entities that you’ve set up would have an interest in?
No, sir. I can tell you rather reservedly that if I had the $290,000 to pay
the court, I would not be sitting right here today with the contempt. I would have
paid it a long time ago. There’s no funds but for what the court in that accounting
has been given.
Is there—and I understand the situation with your home, but—I
understand you have your vehicles. But is there any other personal property, any
land, any—any other type of this property that you own?
I’ve got nothing, Your Honor.
Are there any other kind of investments?
No investments. I had a 401(k), but I liquidated that two years ago or
better. It was a small amount in a 401(k). But I have no 401(k), no retirement.
When I say investment, it could be something other than a 401(k). You
could have an investment in a copper mine or—
None. None, your Honor.
And just so we’re not mincing words, you understand that if something
does turn up during the course of bankruptcy or some other proceeding, I’m going
to be the first one to turn this over to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Sure. Sure. I have tried to be very forthright with the bankruptcy court. I
mean, if the court would like to inquire with them, they certainly can. But I’ve
tried to be very up front with them and have been up front with them.
Id. at 41–43.
The Court then heard testimony from Stephen Smith, the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
Smith said that he had uncovered EF Properties, LLC, which owned a sand and gravel pit in
Copiah County valued at $400,000. Id. at 56–57. According to records filed with the Secretary
of State, Eduardo A. Flechas is listed as the member, manager, and registered agent of EF
Properties, LLC. Id. at 59; see also Trustee Ex. 1 . Smith testified that he met with the prior
owners of the property, the Langs, who explained that they transferred the property to Flechas
and EF Properties. Tr.  at 64. Smith also explained that a lawsuit was currently pending
before Judge Bramlette involving the Langs, Flechas, and the gravel pit. Id. at 66–67; see
Beasley v. Lang, et al., 5:16-CV-82-DCB-MTP.
Given Smith’s statements, the Court instructed Flechas to file a supplemental response.
In it, Flechas denied any real ownership interest in the property. Aff.  (Sealed). He said the
property was used as collateral for the Langs’ legal debts to him. Aff. .
None of this is very clear to the undersigned. Flechas’s affidavit actually raises more
questions, and the attorney for the bankruptcy trustee takes the position that “Flechas [sic]
ownership in E.F. Properties is property of the bankruptcy estate.” D. Henderson Email [49-4].
But given the known facts, it is hard to understand why Flechas would not disclose EF
Properties, LLC, when the Court asked him in terms “as broad as humanly possible” whether he
had any other “interest” in any other assets. Tr.  at 41. At the moment, it does not appear
that any party has asked this Court to determine whether Flechas owns the property, and there
are two other courts looking into that and other issues. Regardless, Flechas’s testimony further
damages his credibility as it relates to his ability to comply with the agreed contempt order.
The Court also notes that MCS, in its post-hearing response, urges the Court not to give
Flechas “contempt credit” for pre-petition funds paid into the bankruptcy court. Pl.’s Resp. 
at 7. Presumably, MCS is referring to the $35,842.29 credit Flechas received on March 16,
2017. Order . This credit was applied pursuant to a joint motion by Flechas and the Trustee
. Only MCS responded, consenting to the motion . Likewise, $59,000 was released to
the Trustee for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate on September 26, 2016, consistent with an
unopposed motion by the Trustee. Order .
While MCS may have a valid argument, there is not a pending motion before the Court
seeking “contempt credit.” Should such a motion be filed in the future, MCS is free to oppose it.
The Court has considered all arguments raised by the parties; those not addressed would
not have changed the result. For the reasons given, Eduardo Flechas’s motion to dismiss the
contempt action  is denied. The Order of Intermittent Incarceration remains in effect.
This case cannot remain open forever, but on this record, the time to close it has not
arrived. Flechas is directed to submit updated financial records on March 1, 2018, for in camera
review. The Court will reassess at that time.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 27th day of November, 2017.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES 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?