Laidman v. Clark et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 10 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for an Order Directing Issuance of Prejudgment Writ of Attachment and Garnishment Without Notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

JERRY LAIDMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CHUCK CLARK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00704-LRH-PAL
ORDER
(Ex Parte Writ of Attachment - Dkt. #10)

12
13

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Order Directing Issuance of Prejudgment

14

Writ of Attachment and Garnishment Without Notice (Dkt. #10). The motion is supported by the

15

attached affidavit of Plaintiff, Jerry Laidman.

16

Plaintiff applies for a writ of attachments and garnishment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 64(a) and

17

NRS 31. Counsel for Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff’s affidavit, standing alone, meets the

18

requirements of NRS 31.020, which authorizes a writ of attachment without notice to the Defendants.

19

Plaintiff’s affidavit avers, inter alia, that upon information and belief Defendants are about to “give,

20

assign, hypothecate, pledge, dispose or conceal the Defendant’s money or property.” He therefore

21

argues that he is entitled to an order directing the issuance of a writ of attachment and garnishment

22

pursuant to NRS 31.117(1)(3)(5) and (6). As there is no NRS 31.117, it appears the motion contains a

23

typographical error, and that Plaintiff is actually referring to NRS 31.017. The Plaintiff believes he is

24

due sums from the Defendants and on “information and belief, Lighthouse for the Blind has recently or

25

will shortly be making a payment of approximately $1.5 million to TotalFlare for its purchase orders.”

26

Plaintiff asserts that he is a resident of Nevada, that none of the Defendants are residents of Nevada,

27

that Plaintiff’s property has been converted without his consent, and on information and belief, that

28

Defendants are about to “give, assign, hypothecate, pledge, dispose of or conceal the Plaintiff’s money

1

or property.” He therefore requests an order directing the issuance of a writ of attachment and

2

garnishment, although he does not specify the amount on the writ.

3

Having reviewed and considered the matter, the court finds the Plaintiff has not met his burden

4

of establishing that a pre-judgment writ of attachment and garnishment without notice should issue.

5

Accordingly,

6
7
8

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for an Order Directing Issuance of Prejudgment
Writ of Attachment and Garnishment Without Notice (Dkt. #10) is DENIED.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2011.

9
10
11

_______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2