One Man Band Corporation et al v. Smith et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Denying 77 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Under URCP 64A. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/13/17. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
ONE MAN BAND CORPORATION, et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION UNDER URCP 64A

Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFF SMITH, et al.,

Case No. 2:14-CV-221 TS
Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion Under URCP 64A.
Defendants responded to the Motion on February 9, 2017, and Plaintiffs replied on February 10,
2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 provides,
At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available
that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a
person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal
statute governs to the extent it applies.
Plaintiffs seek a prejudgment writ of replevin or a writ of attachment. “A writ of replevin
is available to compel delivery to the plaintiff of specific personal property held by the
defendant.” 1 “A writ of attachment is available to seize property in the possession or under the
control of the defendant.” 2 To receive either writ, Plaintiffs must satisfy the requirements set
forth in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 64A. 3 In addition, Plaintiffs must demonstrate the specific

1

Utah R. Civ. P. 64B(a).

2

Utah R. Civ. P. 64C(a).

3

Utah R. Civ. P. 64B(b); Utah R. Civ. P. 64C(b).
1

requirements for each writ. To receive a writ of replevin, Plaintiffs are required to show that
they are entitled to possession of the property and that Defendants wrongfully detain the
property. 4 To obtain a writ of attachment, Plaintiffs must show that Defendants are indebted to
Plaintiffs; that the action is upon a contract, is against a defendant who is not a resident of this
state or is against a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in this state, or the writ is
authorized by statute; and that payment of the claim has not been secured by a lien upon property
in this state. 5
Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion and the supporting documentation, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate entitlement to either a writ of replevin or a writ of
attachment. Plaintiffs completely fail to address any of the requirements of Rules 64B and 64C.
Moreover, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs have satisfied all the requirements of Rule 64A. As
such, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden and the Court will deny this Motion.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion Under URCP 64A (Docket No. 77) is
DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

4

Utah R. Civ. P. 64B(b).

5

Utah R. Civ. P. 64C(b).
2