Parsons v. Fisher et al
Filing
5
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION FOR CHARGING ORDER. Motions to Compel Discovery 2 and 3 are denied. Application for Charging Order 4 is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (KW, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9
10
ROBERT JAMES PARSONS, II,
No. 2:17-MC-0009-JTR
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
14
WILLIAM JOSEPH FISHER and
JOHN TODD MEYERS,
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY AND APPLICATION
FOR CHARGING ORDER
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery
19
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(2) and Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.015, ECF No. 2 &
20
3, and an application for a charging order, ECF No. 4. Plaintiff is represented by
21
Charles R. Steinberg.
22
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered
23
default against Defendant on May 12, 2015, based on Defendants’ failure to
24
comply with Court orders. ECF No. 1. On October 5, 2015, the Southern District
25
of Florida entered judgment against Defendants in the amount of $214,172.84, plus
26
post-judgment interest. Id. That judgment purportedly remains unsatisfied. ECF
27
No. 2-4. The Southern District of Florida judgment was registered in the United
28
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on May 22, 2017. ECF
ORDER . . . - 1
1
No. 1. Plaintiff now seeks to compel discovery and requests the issuance of a
2
charging order to determine whether Defendants have an interest in property within
3
the Eastern District of Washington to apply toward the satisfaction of the Southern
4
District of Florida judgment. ECF No. 2-4.
5
A.
6
7
On October 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel discovery to aid
in the collection of the unsatisfied judgment. ECF No. 2-3.
8
9
Motions to Compel
The Court may require judgment debtors to answer written interrogatories
propounded upon them under FED. R. CIV. P. 69. Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.015.
10
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that if a party fails to timely answer
11
a submitted interrogatory, the party seeking discovery may move the Court for an
12
order compelling an answer to the interrogatory request. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3).
13
“The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith
14
conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure
15
or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1).
16
Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to “written interrogatories” fail to
17
describe any attempts by Plaintiff to obtain answers to interrogatory requests from
18
each named defendant prior to seeking the intervention of this Court. The motions
19
also fail to identify any specific interrogatory question that a named defendant
20
refused to answer and the defendant’s specific response to the interrogatory
21
question, if any. Without more information, the Court is not able to grant
22
Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery.
23
B.
24
25
26
Application for Charging Order
Plaintiff requests the issuance of a charging order against the nonexempt
interest of Defendant Fisher in House of WA Holdings, LLC. ECF No. 4.
The procedure for reaching a judgment debtor’s interest in a partnership or
27
limited liability company is a charging order. While it appears Plaintiff seeks to
28
procure Defendant Fisher’s interest in a limited liability company registered in
ORDER . . . - 2
1
Wenatchee, Washington, Plaintiff does not state the authority for the issuance of a
2
charging order in this case1 or any facts supporting Plaintiff’s belief that Defendant
3
Fisher has an ownership interest in the cited limited liability company. To the
4
extent Plaintiff seeks to compel the production of documents,2 Plaintiff has again
5
failed to specifically identify any prior attempts to obtain this discovery or
6
Defendants’ responses to any such discovery attempts. See FED. R. CIV. P.
7
37(a)(1), (a)(3)(iv).
8
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
9
1.
10
DENIED without prejudice.
11
12
2.
Plaintiff’s Application for Charging Order, ECF No. 4, is DENIED
without prejudice.
13
14
Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery, ECF No. 2 & 3, are
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this
Order and provide a copy to counsel.
DATED October 18, 2017.
15
16
_____________________________________
JOHN T. RODGERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
1
The Washington State law governing a request for a charging order with
21
respect to a limited liability company is Wash. Rev. Code § 25.15.256. The Court
22
has the discretion to issue a charging order against the interest of a member of a
23
limited liability company in order to satisfy a judgment. See Ivy v. Brown, 139
24
Wash. App. 1017 (2007) (unpublished).
25
2
In Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce to
26
Plaintiff copies of the partnership agreement or any other agreements or documents
27
evidencing the interest of Defendant in House of WA Holdings, LLC. ECF No. 4
28
at 2.
ORDER . . . - 3
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?