Amtrust Bank et al v. Lewis et al

Filing 263

ORDER that judgment creditors' 249 Motion for Contempt is Denied and that judgment creditors' 250 Motion to Modify Injunction is Denied. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/6/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

FDIC as Receiver for AMTRUST BANK, f/k/a
Ohio Savings Bank, a federal savings bank,
et al.,

9

ORDER

Plaintiff(s),

10
11

Case No. 2:10-CV-439 JCM (VCF)

v.
REX H. LEWIS, et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is a motion for contempt filed by plaintiffs Iota Cinnamon, LLC,

15

Iota Coral, LLC, Iota Red, LLC, Iota Royal, LLC, and Iota Violet, LLC (collectively, as “judgment

16

creditors”). (ECF No. 249). Defendant Rex Lewis (“judgment debtor” or “Lewis”) filed a

17

response (ECF No. 252), to which judgment creditors replied (ECF No. 254).

18

Also before the court is judgment creditors’ motion to modify injunction. (ECF No. 250).

19

Judgment debtor filed a response (ECF No. 253), to which judgment creditors replied (ECF No.

20

255).

21

I.

Facts

22

The facts of the instant case are familiar to the court and the parties. This dispute arose out

23

of five commercial loan agreements guaranteed by judgment debtor. Each loan was secured by

24

one or more deeds of trust on the relevant properties. After Nevada’s real estate market crashed

25

in 2008, the borrowers defaulted on the loans and the banks foreclosed on the properties.

26

Substantial debts remained after the foreclosure sales. (ECF No. 174).

27

Judgment creditors filed a deficiency judgment action against judgment debtor as guarantor

28

of the loans. (ECF No. 1). Judgment creditors moved for summary judgment, and judgment debtor

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

did not oppose the motion. The court granted summary judgment and entered judgment against

2

judgment debtor and his various companies, jointly and severally, for $66,089,661.52. (ECF Nos.

3

41, 59).
On July 3, 2014, the court entered an order enjoining judgment debtor from transferring

4
5

assets he currently owns which are worth $5,000.00 or more. (ECF No. 65).

6

On August 27, 2015, Lewis filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 182). On May 30, 2017,

7

the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s order enjoining judgment debtor from transferring assets he

8

currently owns which are worth $5,000.00 or more (ECF No. 65). (ECF Nos. 256, 258).
In the instant motions, judgment creditors renew their previous motions for contempt and

9
10

to modify the injunction.1 (ECF Nos. 249, 250).

11

II.

Legal Standards

12

A. Contempt

13

It is well established that “courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their

14

lawful orders through civil contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966).

15

Additionally, “[a] court has wide latitude in determining whether there has been contemptuous

16

defiance of its order.” Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Neebars, Inc.

17

v. Long Bar Grinding, Inc., 438 F.2d 47, 48 (9th Cir. 1971)).

18

“Civil contempt . . . consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order

19

by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” In re Dual-Deck Video

20

Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). However, “a person should

21

not be held in contempt if his action[s] appear[] to be based on a good faith and reasonable

22

interpretation of the court’s order.” Id. (quoting Vertex Distrib., Inc. v. Falcon Foam Plastics,

23

Inc., 689 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1982)). Further, “[s]ubstantial compliance with the court order

24

is a defense to civil contempt, and is not vitiated by a few technical violations where every

25

reasonable effort has been made to comply.” In re Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at 695.

26

...

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Both motions were refiled before the Ninth Circuit decision disregarding the court’s previous
orders stating when to refile the motions.
1

-2-

1

B. Modify Injunction

2

A district court has “wide discretion” when deciding whether to modify an injunction based

3

on changes in factual or legal circumstances. System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642,

4

647 (1961); see also A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 284 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

When deciding whether to modify an injunction, the court must strike a balance “between the

6

policies of res judicata and the right of the court to apply modified measures to changed

7

circumstances.” Wright, 364 U.S. at 648.

8

III.

9

Discussion
A. Contempt

10

In the immediate motion, judgment creditors argue that defendant Lewis is in contempt

11

because he has transferred funds in excess of $5,000.00 violating the court’s order. (ECF No. 249

12

at 5–10). In particular, judgment creditors allege that defendant Lewis owns and controls a Wells

13

Fargo checking account ending in 0404 (“0404 account”) and has been transferring funds in excess

14

of $5,000.00 from the 0404 account. (ECF No. 249 at 5–8).

15

In response, judgment debtor contends that he has fully complied with the court’s order

16

and has not transferred any funds exceeding $5,000.00. (ECF No. 252 at 4–9). In particular,

17

judgment debtor asserts that he does not own nor does he have control over the 0404 account; the

18

0404 account is his wife’s, Catherine Lewis’ (“Mrs. Lewis”), account. (ECF No. 252 at 5–7).

19

To succeed on a motion for contempt, the moving party “must demonstrate that the alleged

20

contemnor violated the court’s order by clear and convincing evidence, not merely a

21

preponderance of the evidence.” In re Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at 695 (citing Vertex Distrib., Inc., 689

22

F.2d at 889).

23
24

Here, judgment creditors fails to demonstrate that judgment debtor has violated the court’s
order (ECF No. 65) by clear and convincing evidence.

25

The transfers from the 0404 account do not appear to be made by judgment debtor. For

26

example, judgment debtor’s wife, Mrs. Lewis, made the transfer of $40,000.00 from the 0404

27

account on April 26, 2015, as demonstrated through her name and signature on the check. (ECF

28

Nos. 249-5, 249-6). Additionally, the other two transfers judgment creditors refer to do not appear

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-

1

to have any connection to judgment debtor. (ECF No. 249 at 8, 9); (see also ECF Nos. 249-6, 249-

2

8). Therefore, judgment creditors fail to demonstrate that judgment debtor, himself, has actually

3

transferred any asset worth more than $5,000.00. (See ECF No. 65).

4

Further, the court is unconvinced that judgment debtor owns or has any control over the

5

0404 account. Judgment debtor’s name rarely appears on any documents relating to the 0404

6

account. Based on the documents provided, Mrs. Lewis appears to own the 0404 account and

7

control all transactions related to the 0404 account. (See ECF No. 249). Since Mrs. Lewis has

8

never been a party to this case, nor is she enjoined by the court’s order, judgment creditors fail to

9

demonstrate that judgment debtor, himself, violated the court’s order.

10

Accordingly, the court will deny judgment creditors’ motion for contempt (ECF No. 249).

11

B. Modify Injunction

12

Additionally, judgment creditors argue that the court’s order enjoining judgment debtor

13

from transferring assets (ECF No. 65) should be expanded to include Mrs. Lewis, judgment

14

debtor’s wife. In particular, judgment creditors allege that Mrs. Lewis “knowingly assisted

15

[judgment debtor] in attempting to by-pass” the court’s order. (ECF No. 250 at 11).

16

In response, judgment debtor contends that judgment creditors fail to show changed

17

circumstances because the accusations against Mrs. Lewis are false and Mrs. Lewis has never been

18

a party to this case. (ECF No. 253 at 10, 13).

19

“[A] party seeking modification or dissolution of an injunction bears the burden of

20

establishing that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision or dissolution of the

21

injunction.” Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000).

22

Here, judgment creditors fail to meet their burden. Judgment creditors attempt to establish

23

a substantial change in facts by attacking Mrs. Lewis’ character and making theoretical

24

conclusions as to why Mrs. Lewis made certain transactions. (See ECF No. 250 at 10). However,

25

the allegations do not convince the court to expand the order.

26

In addition, Mrs. Lewis has never been a party in the present case and there is no indication

27

that Mrs. Lewis is responsible for the deficiency judgment. Moreover, judgment creditors did not

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-4-

1

adequately demonstrate that Mrs. Lewis is hindering judgment creditors from collecting on the

2

judgment deficiency.
Therefore, the court will deny judgment creditors’ motion to modify injunction (ECF No.

3
4

250).

5

IV.

Conclusion

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment creditors’

8
9
10
11

motion for contempt (ECF No. 249) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment creditors’ motion to modify injunction (ECF
No. 250) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED July 6, 2017.

12
13

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-5-