Carpenters' District Council Of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity et al v. Rackley Building Group, L.L.C.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is GRANTED. [Doc. 15] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cardin Rackley, an officer of defendant Rackley Building Group, LLC, shall appear for a post-judgment deposition and produce the records requested in the Notice of Rule 69 Deposition and Request for Production of Documents, at the offices of plaintiffs counsel on Thursday, May 22, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a c opy of this order todefendant Rackley Building Group, LLC, 11823 Kingsfront Place, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63033, which, according to the Office of the Missouri Secretary of State, is the companys address of record. ( Response to Court due by 5/22/2014.) Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/7/14. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
GREATER ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY,
RACKLEY BUILDING GROUP, LLC,
No. 4:12-CV-1224 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to compel post-judgment discovery.
Plaintiffs’ motion is accompanied by an affidavit of counsel and exhibits. For the following reasons,
the Court will grant the motion.
Plaintiffs Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity (“Carpenters District
Council” or the “Union”) and the Trustees of its various trust funds filed this action to collect
delinquent fringe benefit contributions from defendant Rackley Building Group, LLC (“Rackley”)
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) 29 U.S.C. § 1132 on behalf
of fringe benefit funds affiliated with the Union. The Complaint asserts that defendant Rackley was
a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the Carpenters District Council, effective from
May 7, 2008 through April 30, 2013. The collective bargaining agreement required defendant to
make contributions to the Carpenters District Council’s employee benefit funds. Plaintiffs assert
that defendant failed and refused to pay the required contributions.
Defendant was served with summons and a copy of the complaint on February 15, 2013, but
it did not file an answer or other responsive pleading within the time allowed by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On September 27, 2013, a Clerk’s Entry of Default was issued pursuant to Rule
55(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. On February 25, 2014, the Court entered default judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and against Rackley in the total amount of Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and One
Dollars and Seventy-Two Cents ($16,101.72). [Doc. 13]
Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and the affidavit of attorney Matthew J. Gierse assert that
plaintiffs sent a notice of post-judgment deposition to Rackley by first-class mail on February 26,
2014, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 69 and 37. The notice required the attendance
of Cardin Rackley, an officer of defendant, at the offices of plaintiffs’ counsel on March 25, 2014
at 11:30 a.m., and the simultaneous production of certain documents relevant to plaintiffs’ efforts
to collect the judgment in this case. The affidavit states that no representative of Rackley appeared
at the deposition or produced any documents, nor did any representative of the defendant contact
plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to the deposition notice.
Rule 69(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “[A] money judgment is
enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise.” Rule 69(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 69 further provides that the procedure on execution, and in proceedings in aid of execution,
“must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs
to the extent it applies.” Id. Rule 69(a)(2) provides that in aid of a judgment or execution, a
judgment creditor “may obtain discovery from any person–including the judgment debtor–as
provided in [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or by the procedure of the state where the court
is located.” Rule 69(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Plaintiffs seek to take a post-judgment deposition in aid of execution of their judgment. This
procedure is appropriate pursuant to Rules 69(a) and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It appears to the Court from the affidavit of plaintiffs’ counsel that defendant’s representative,
Cardin Rackley, was properly noticed for deposition but he failed to appear. Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel discovery should therefore be granted, and Cardin Rackley will be ordered to appear for
deposition at the offices of plaintiffs’ counsel, and to produce the requested documents at the same
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cardin Rackley, an officer of defendant Rackley
Building Group, LLC, shall appear for a post-judgment deposition and produce the records requested
in the Notice of Rule 69 Deposition and Request for Production of Documents, at the offices of
plaintiffs’ counsel on Thursday, May 22, 2014, at 11:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to
defendant Rackley Building Group, LLC, 11823 Kingsfront Place, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63033,
which, according to the Office of the Missouri Secretary of State, is the company’s address of
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
day of May, 2014.
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?