Integrity Energy, Ltd. v. Hunter et al
Filing
262
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 252 Motion for the Appointment of a Receiver; denying 253 Motion to Lift Automatic Stay. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/22/2021. (M,S)
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 262 Filed: 07/22/21 1 of 3. PageID #: 9388
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
INTEGRITY ENERGY,LTD.,
CASE NO.: l:18-CV-00978
Plaintiff,
JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
V.
JERRAN HUNTER,et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff, Integrity Energy, Ltd.'s ("Integrity" or
"Plaintiff) Motion for the Appointment of Receiver(ECF #252) and Motion to Lift Automatic
Stay(ECF #253)("Plaintiffs Motions"). On July 21, 2021,the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs
Motions with counsel for all parties present. For the reasons that follow. Plaintiffs Motions are
DENIED.
(ECF #252,253).
Rule 66 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits federal district courts to "exercise
their equitable powers, instituting receiverships over disputed assets in cases within the courts'
jurisdiction." Liberte Capital Group, LLC v. Capwill, 248 Fed. App'x 650, 655 (6"* Cir. 2007).
"The role of a receiver is to safeguard disputed assets, to suitably administer the receivership
property, and to assist the court in achieving a final, equitable distribution ofthe assets." Id.
There is no precise formula for determining when appointment is warranted; however,
courts generally consider the validity ofthe claim by the party seeking appointment;the probability
that fraudulent conduct has occurred or will occur to frustrate the claim; imminent danger that
property will be concealed,lost, or its value diminished; inadequacy oflegal remedies; lack ofless
1
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 262 Filed: 07/22/21 2 of 3. PageID #: 9389
drastic equitable remedy; and the likelihood that appointment will do more good than harm. De
Boer Structures (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Shaffer Tent & Awning Co., 187 F. Supp. 2d 910,925(D.S. Ohio
2001).
Integrity argues the appointment of a receiver is necessary because of Defendants'
unorthodox record-keeping practices and alleged propensity for exorbitant spending and
concealing funds. Defendants argue a receiver in this case is unwarranted, unnecessary, and would
result in more harm than good. Pursuant to this Court's July 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and
Order (EOF #251), Plaintiff established Defendants' breach of the settlement agreement and is
entitled to damages and attorneys' fees. The Court, however, does not find that the circumstances
ofthis case warrant the appointment of a receiver to oversee the execution ofthe judgment.
While Integrity has demonstrated in its briefings and at the Court's hearing Defendants
may engage in fraudulent conduct, or that the funds at issue may be in imminent danger of being
concealed, lost, or diminished. Plaintiff has not proved the inadequacy of other available legal
remedies, or that a less severe equitable remedy to collect on the judgment does not exist.
Accordingly, the Court finds the appointment of a receiver in this matter is unwarranted and
Plaintiffs Motion for the Appointment of Receiver is DENIED.(ECF #252).
Pursuant to Rule 62(a) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,"execution on ajudgment
and proceedings to enforce it are stayed for 30 days after its entry, unless the court orders
otherwise." The automatic stay under Rule 62(a) affords Defendants the opportunity to consider
its post-judgment rights, including whether to appeal, and Integrity presents no justification to
warrant the Court's lifting ofthe stay, which remains in effect for approximately two more weeks.
For these reasons. Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Automatic Stay(ECF #253)is DENIED.
Case: 1:18-cv-00978-DCN Doc #: 262 Filed: 07/22/21 3 of 3. PageID #: 9390
Based on the foregoing, Integrity's Motion for the Appointment of Receiver(ECF #252)
and Motion to Lift Automatic Stay(ECF #253) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/jtu/i i s IimJ'
DONALD C. NUGENR
Senior United States d1ยง'xict Judge
DATED:
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?