Olson et al v. Desserts on the Boulevard, LLC et al
Filing
141
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -....IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery in aid of execution is GRANTED. [Doc. 138]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller shall answ er plaintiffs' Interrogatories and provide documents in response to the Requests for Production of Documents, without objection, and send their Answers and documents to plaintiffs' counsel by April 10, 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller, both by first-class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, at 5733 Clemens Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63112. ( Response to Court due by 4/10/2015.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 3/31/2015. (MRC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRIS OLSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DESSERTS ON THE BOULEVARD, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:12-CV-1629 CAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery in aid of execution,
which seeks to compel responses to post-judgment discovery plaintiffs directed to pro se defendants
Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller. Plaintiffs’ motion is unopposed and the time to
do so has passed. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion.
Background
Plaintiffs Chris Olson, Corey Bishop, Joshua Harvey and Matthew Shucart filed suit to
recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Wage and
Hour Law. On the morning of trial, the parties announced they had reached a settlement and
presented the Court with a proposed stipulated consent judgment. On November 18, 2013, the Court
entered the Consent Judgment which in pertinent part provided as follows:
Defendants consent to judgment being entered in favor of Plaintiff Chris
Olson and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,000.00
(Four Thousand Dollars and No Cents).
Defendants further consent to judgment being entered in favor of Plaintiff
Corey Bishop and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$4,000.00 (Four Thousand Dollars and No Cents).
Defendants consent to judgment being entered in favor of Plaintiff Joshua
Harvey and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.00
(One Thousand Dollars and No Cents).
Defendants consent to judgment being entered in favor of Plaintiff Matthew
Shucart and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $6,000.00
(Six Thousand Dollars and No Cents).
The parties agree and stipulate that this Consent Judgment will be satisfied
in four (4) installment payments. The installment payment schedule is as follows:
1.
The first installment payment of $5,000.00 (Five Thousand Dollars
& No Cents) shall be paid on or before January 1, 2014.
2.
The second installment payment of $2,500.00 (Two Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars & No Cents) shall be paid on or before February 1, 2014.
3.
The third installment payment of $4,000.00 (Four Thousand Dollars
and No Cents) shall be paid on or before March 1, 2014.
4.
The fourth installment payment of $3,500.00 (Three Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars and No Cents) shall be paid on or before April 1, 2014.
Consent Judgment at 1-2 (Doc. 99). The Judgment remains unsatisfied.
Motion to Compel
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel states that plaintiffs propounded Requests for Production of
Documents and Interrogatories to Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller on August 1,
2014, in aid of execution of the judgment. Plaintiffs state that the defendants have refused to answer
the discovery but have not objected to it. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel also states that pursuant to
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and this Court’s Local Rule 3.04(A), plaintiffs’ counsel
has made reasonable efforts to confer in good faith with the defendants regarding the unanswered
discovery, but has been unsuccessful in those attempts.
Rule 69(a)(1) of the Federal Rules provides that “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
2
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 have propounded Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories in aid
of execution of their judgment. This procedure is appropriate pursuant to Rules 69(a), 33 and 34
of the Federal Rules. It appears to the Court from the motion to compel that defendants were
properly served with plaintiffs’ post-judgment discovery requests but have failed to answer them.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery should therefore be granted, and defendants Watson-Miller
and Miller will be ordered to answer plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery in aid of execution
is GRANTED. [Doc. 138]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A.
Miller shall answer plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and provide documents in response to the Requests
for Production of Documents, without objection, and send their Answers and documents to
plaintiffs’ counsel by April 10, 2015.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to
defendants Catina D. Watson-Miller and Deverick A. Miller, both by first-class mail and by certified
mail, return receipt requested, at 5733 Clemens Place, St. Louis, Missouri 63112.
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 31st day of March, 2015.
4
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?