Cutler et al v. White et al

Filing 198

JUDGMENT: Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment with Money Award and Attorney's Fees, ECF 191 , is GRANTED. This Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement, signed Confession of Judgment, and Defendant Harkins' opposition t o the entry of judgment. The Court finds that there is diversity jurisdiction as the amount in controversy is above $75,000 and complete diversity exists. This Court concludes that entry of judgment is appropriate, and that Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees and post-judgment interest. See attached Judgment for further details. Signed on 11/25/2024 by Judge Karin J. Immergut. (jy)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROBERT CUTLER and NANCY CUTLER, a married couple; and ROBERT TICE, an individual, Case No. 3:18-cv-01692-IM JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, v. TYTUS HARKINS, an individual citizen of the State of Montana; JASON M. WHITE, an individual citizen of the State of Washington; HARTMAN WRIGHT, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; HARTMAN WRIGHT GROUP, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; HARTMAN WRIGHT GROUP LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; HARTMAN WRIGHT PROJECT MANAGEMENT, a Colorado limited liability company; PLEASANT HILL MHP HOLDINGS, LLC, an unknown entity; and ONE SIXTEEN GROUP, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Defendants. Pursuant to the Confession of Judgment, ECF189, filed by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment, ECF 191, it is: ORDERED that Defendants failed to timely make payments when due, or otherwise failed to perform as agreed in the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs were authorized to file the Confessions of Judgment; ORDERED that Defendants are responsible and liable for the claims of Plaintiffs as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, more specifically as follows: a. Defendants engaged in securities fraud pursuant to ORS 59.135 by employing a scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs by making false statements of material facts, failing to state material facts necessary to make their statements not misleading, and by engaging in the course of business that operated as a fraud on the Plaintiffs; b. Defendants sold unregistered securities not sold under any exemption; c. The corporate veil is pierced and Defendants are liable for the default judgments against the HW companies; d. Defendants are liable under the terms of the Promissory Notes signed by Plaintiffs; e. Defendants engaged in common law fraud by making representations that were false, misleading, or withheld material facts from the Plaintiffs; f. Defendants were unjustly enriched; g. Defendants violated the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act by making transfers with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the Plaintiffs; and h. Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff Tice specific to the “Robin’s Landing MHP”; PAGE 2 – JUDGMENT ORDERED that Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the debt agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement in the amount of $1,000,000.00, minus any payments made as of the entry of this judgment and Defendants, and any associated entities, shall be jointly and severally liable for the balance of damages owed to Plaintiffs as set forth below: Money Award Summary 1. Judgment Creditors: 2. Judgment Debtors: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Principal Judgment: Attorney’s Fees: Total Judgment Amount: Post-Judgment Interest: Attorneys for Judgment Creditors: Bob & Nancy Cutler, Robert Tice Tytus Harkins & Jason M. White and all associated entities $911,434.13 $2,100.00 $913,534.13 9% Scannellaw, LLC; and ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the terms of this Judgment. DATED this 25th day of November, 2024. /s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge PAGE 3 – JUDGMENT

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?