Delay v. Ace Heating Inc et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor's unopposed 76 Motion for extension of life of judgment. It is hereby ORDERED that the life of the judgment first entered on September 12, 2007, (Dkt. No. 58 ), and later amended, (Dkt. No. 72 ), is extended for an additional ten-year period for all purposes permitted under Washington Revised Code §§ 6.17.020(3), 4.16.020, 4.56.190, and 4.56.210. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

GERALD DELAY,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C06-1008-JCC

ACE HEATING, INC., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff-Judgment Creditor’s unopposed motion

16

for an extension of the life of the judgment (Dkt. No. 76). Plaintiff’s application is timely and the

17

documentation provided supports the requested updates. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

18

The judgment is updated as follows:

19

Gerald M. Delay

Judgment Creditor’s Attorney:

James W. Beck
Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100
Tacoma, WA 98402

Judgment Debtors:

Timothy M. Hayes and Ace Heating, Inc.

Amount of Judgment:

$542,000.00

Amount of Attorney Fees and Prior Costs:

20

Judgment Creditor:

$70,971.87

21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 1

Amount of Interest Owed to Date:

2

$297,297.63 1

Total Taxable Costs:

1

$241.49

3

It is hereby ORDERED that the life of the judgment first entered on September 12, 2007,

4

(Dkt. No. 58), and later amended, (Dkt. No. 72), is extended for an additional ten-year period for

5

all purposes permitted under Washington Revised Code §§ 6.17.020(3), 4.16.020, 4.56.190, and

6

4.56.210.

7

DATED this 25th day of July 2017.

A

8
9
10

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiff’s briefing and documentation indicate the amount of interest owed to date is
$297,297.63; however, the proposed order indicates the amount is $297,287.63. (Compare Dkt.
No. 76 with Dkt. No. 76 at 1.) The Court construes the proposed order amount as a typo unless
otherwise notified by the parties.

ORDER
PAGE - 2