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
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?