Federal National Mortgage Association v. Willis et al

Filing 287

ORDER granting #285 Motion for Order to Show Cause. SHOW CAUSE Hearing set for 3/19/2021 at 11:00 AM in LV Courtroom 6A before Judge James C. Mahan. FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Fannie Mae must serve a copy of this show-cause order on Willis and Aldridge and file proof of service as soon as practicable. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/11/2021.; (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF Document 287 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

***

8
9

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF

v.
ERNEST C. ALDRIDGE; CLARENCE
MOSES WILLIS; GERI L. MCKINNON;
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS 4 U LLC, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Presently before the court is plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association’s

18

(“Fannie Mae”) emergency motion for an order to show cause why the court should not hold

19

pro se defendants Ernest C. Aldridge and Clarence Moses Willis in civil contempt. (ECF No.

20

285).

21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Fannie Mae brought this case to stop defendants’ scheme to defraud it of its interests in

23

Nevada properties. (TRO Order, ECF No. 19 at 2). Fannie Mae would acquire an ownership

24

interest in a property with a trustee’s deed upon sale. (Id.). Willis, purportedly acting as Fannie

25

Mae’s agent, would convey the property to Aldridge via quitclaim deed. (Id.). Aldridge would

26

then record and re-record each quitclaim deed. (Id.). Neither Willis nor Aldridge were ever

27

employees, agents, or authorized representatives of Fannie Mae. (Id.).

28

Case 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF Document 287 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 5

1

The court entered final judgment for Fannie Mae in April 2018 which the Ninth Circuit

2

affirmed on appeal. (J., ECF No. 264; Mem., ECF No. 278). The final judgment declared

3

Fannie Mae the true and lawful owner of the eight subject properties. (ECF No. 264 at 2). It

4

also declared that all conveyances executed by Willis and Aldridge were void ab initio and all

5

related instruments were expunged. (Id. at 3). The court permanently enjoined Willis from

6

conveying or selling any property owned by Fannie Mae. (Id. at 4). The court also awarded

7

Fannie Mae $103,000 in punitive damages for Willis’s fraudulent use of its name on business

8

licenses and permits in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(e). (Id. at 5).

9

Now almost three years later, Fannie Mae says that Willis and Aldridge still hold

10

themselves out to be owners of a subject property. (ECF No. 285). In December 2020, Willis

11

executed and recorded a quitclaim deed purportedly conveying title to the property at 330

12

Garden Lane, Fernley, NV 89408 from himself individually to the 330 Garden Lane Trust of

13

which he is the trustee. (ECF No. 285-5). According to Fannie Mae, the conveyance is “an

14

attempt to veil his continued claim to ownership and to resuscitate the fabricated chain of title

15

this [c]ourt declared void ab initio.” (ECF No. 285 at 4).

16

Fannie Mae also “has been advised by two independent sources” that Willis and

17

Aldridge are trying to sell the 330 Garden Lane property. (Sassi Decl., 287-7 at 1). Fannie

18

Mae offers a declaration from a buyer who says that she called the phone number on the

19

property’s for-sale sign and spoke to Aldridge. (Simmons Decl., ECF No. 285-6). The buyer

20

later met with Aldridge where he explained that he was showing the property on behalf of

21

Willis who had “clear deed” to the property. (Id. at 3). He laughed off the Lyon County

22

records showing Fannie Mae as the owner as an error. (Id.). The buyer decided not to procced

23

with the purchase. (Id.). In addition, the real estate agent retained by Fannie Mae to retake

24

possession and sell the property says that he saw a for-sale sign during his weekly inspection

25

in January 2021. (Ashton Decl., ECF No. 285-4 at 3).

26

Fannie Mae asks the court to hold Willis and Aldridge in contempt and remand them

27

to custody until they vacate the property and deliver possession to Fannie Mae, remove their

28

personal property, remove any for-sale signs, and remove any sale advertisements. (ECF No.
2

Case 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF Document 287 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 5

1

285 at 7–8). It believes that “imprisonment is necessary to compel compliance” as a fine would

2

only encourage Willis and Aldridge to accelerate their sale efforts. (Id. at 7).

3

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

4

The court has “wide latitude in determining whether there has been a contemptuous

5

defiance of its order.” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir.

6

1992) (quoting Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks

7

omitted)). The moving party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor

8

violated “a specific and definite order of the court.” Id. at 856 n.9. The burden then shifts to

9

the contemnor to show that he “took every reasonable step to comply.” Id. The moving party

10

need not show that the contemnor’s non-compliance was intentional and there is no good-faith

11

exception that can excuse non-compliance. In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust

12

Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

13

Civil contempt may be disciplined by fines, imprisonment, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 401.

14

Because civil contempt sanctions are non-punitive, they “may be imposed in an ordinary civil

15

proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.” United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991,

16

995 (1999) (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821,

17

831 (1994)). “A civil contemnor ‘carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket’ ” because

18

courts impose civil contempt sanctions to compel compliance. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,

19

399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S.

20

418, 441 (1911)). The court can also wield its civil contempt powers to compensate the moving

21

party for injuries or costs from the contemptuous conduct.

22

Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2016).

23

III.

See Shell Offshore Inc. v.

DISCUSSION

24

A.

Emergency Motion

25

As an initial matter, Fannie Mae styles this matter as an emergency. Emergency

26

motions should be rare. LR 7-4(b). They impose administrative burdens and impede the

27

adversarial process. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev.

28

2015). A matter is, in fact, an emergency when the moving party will be “irreparably
3

Case 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF Document 287 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 5

1

prejudiced” if the court resolves the motion on a normal briefing schedule and is “without fault

2

in creating the crisis that requires emergency relief” or can show excusable neglect. Id. at

3

1142; see also LR 7-4(c). Local Rule 7-4(a) sets forth the requirements for a declaration that

4

must accompany an emergency motion. These requirements are satisfied here. (See Sassi

5

Decl., ECF No. 285-7).

6

Proceeding in this matter on an emergency basis is unwarranted. The court is not

7

convinced that the actions of Willis and Aldridge “present a clear and immediate danger to the

8

general public” as Fannie Mae claims. (ECF No. 285-7 at 1). After all, the official records of

9

Lyon County show Fannie Mae as the true owner of the property. (ECF No. 285-1). And any

10

purported sale to an unsuspecting buyer would not cause irreparable prejudice to Fannie Mae.

11

Yet the court will not deny Fannie Mae’s motion for its emergency label.1 Given the merits

12

and gravity of Fannie Mae’s requested sanction—imprisonment—the court will afford

13

defendants ample time and opportunity to comply with its orders.

14

B.

Request for a Show-Cause Order

15

The court now turns to Fannie Mae’s request for a show-cause order. Fannie Mae has

16

shown by clear and convincing evidence that Willis and Aldridge are defying the court’s final

17

judgment. Above all, it offers a recorded quitclaim deed which purportedly conveys the 330

18

Garden Lane property from Willis individually to the 330 Garden Lane Trust of which he is

19

the trustee. (ECF No. 285-5). These actions violate the judgment which declared Fannie Mae

20

the true and lawful owner of the property and enjoined Willis from conveying or selling any

21

property owned by Fannie Mae. (ECF No. 264 at 4). Fannie Mae also offers clear and

22

convincing evidence that Aldridge is acting on Willis’s behalf in trying to sell the property. 2

23

(ECF No. 285 at 2). For these reasons, Willis and Aldridge are ordered to show cause why the

24

court should not hold them in contempt and impose appropriate civil sanctions.

25
26
27
28

1

As Judge Dorsey succinctly surmised in denying an improvident emergency motion: “You
keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” United Nat’l Ins. Co.
v. Assurance Co. of Am. & Maryland Casualty Co., 2014 WL 4960915, *1 (D. Nev. June 4, 2014)
(quoting Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride (Act III Communications 1987)).
2
The court notes, however, that the permanent injunction in the judgment only applies to
Willis and not Aldridge. (ECF No. 264 at 4).
4

Case 2:15-cv-02366-JCM-GWF Document 287 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 5

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Fannie Mae’s

4

emergency motion for an order to show cause (ECF No. 285) be, and the same hereby is,

5

GRANTED.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Aldridge, Willis, and counsel for Fannie Mae must

7

appear for a show-cause hearing on Friday, March 19, 2021, at 11:00am in Courtroom 6A,

8

Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas,

9

Nevada. Aldridge and Willis must show cause as to why the court should not hold them in

10
11
12

civil contempt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Fannie Mae must serve a copy of this
show-cause order on Willis and Aldridge and file proof of service as soon as practicable.

13
14

DATED THIS 11th day of March 2021.

15
JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5