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)

Download PDF
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?