Dargan v. Nodus

Filing 99

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Temporary Restraining Order; re parties' 97 Stipulated Motion, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MARGARET E. DARGAN, a single person and resident of the state of Oregon, Plaintiff, v. NO. 2:08-cv-01714-RSL STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER GARY V. INGRAM, a Washington resident, individually; PAMELA M. NODUS, a Washington resident, individually; and the marital community of GARY V. INGRAM and PAMELA M. NODUS, Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On June 22, 2017 at 3:20 p.m., the Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Dkt. 96) restraining Defendants Gary Ingram and Pamela Nodus from transferring funds out of ten (10) identified accounts and any other undisclosed accounts and ordering Chase Bank, Wells Fargo Bank and U.S. Bank to freeze the identified accounts. The TRO was based in part on the Declaration of Robert Agnew (Dkt. 95), an investigator who conducted a search which resulted in identification of the ten (10) accounts frozen by the TRO. The TRO further provided: This Order shall remain in place for 14 days from the date of filing. Defendants shall have until July 3, 2017, to file an opposition seeking to dissolve or modify the restraints imposed by this Order. If no opposition is filed, the motion will be converted to a preliminary injunction. If an opposition is filed, plaintiff may file a reply by noon on July 6, 2017. STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 1 (2:08-cv-01714-RSL) BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871 FAX (206) 621-9907 1 For Defendant Ingram to adequately oppose the TRO and verify ownership of the 2 accounts in question requires obtaining documentation from U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo and Chase 3 Bank via subpoenas duces tecum. Defendant Ingram is immediately issuing said subpoenas for 4 service, but it is unlikely that the necessary bank records will be produced prior to Defendant 5 Ingram’s opposition deadline of July 3, 2017. 6 Therefore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2), Defendant Ingram consents to and 7 requests that the TRO be extended by an additional fourteen (14) days; that the opposition 8 deadline be extended to July 17, 2017; and that plaintiff’s reply deadline be extended to noon on 9 July 20, 2017. Plaintiff agrees and stipulates to the entry of such an order. 10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of June, 2017. 11 12 BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Abigail Z. Staggers Abigail Z. Staggers, WSBA #43962 Attorneys for Defendant, Gary V. Ingram 1422 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Phone: 206-621-1871 Fax: 206-21-9907 Email: azs@bmatlaw.com CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S. By: /s/ Lindsey M. Pflugrath Lindsey M. Pflugrath, WSBA #36964 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Margaret E. Dargan 524 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-587-0700 Fax: 206-587-2308 Email: lpflugrath@cairncross.com STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 2 (2:08-cv-01714-RSL) BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871 FAX (206) 621-9907 1 2 3 4 ORDER The parties having so stipulated and agreed, it is hereby SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record. Dated this 28th day of June, 2017. 5 ALasnik Honorable Robert S. 6 United States District Court Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER- 3 (2:08-cv-01714-RSL) BAROKAS MARTIN & TOMLINSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1422 BELLEVUE AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 TELEPHONE (206) 621-1871 FAX (206) 621-9907

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?