Rey et al v. Rey et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 87 Motion to Compel Compliance. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 JEAN PIERRE REY and ILZE
SILARASA,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
MICHEL REY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

CASE NO. C14-5093 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL COMPLIANCE

14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Builders Surplus Northwest
15
Inc., Nevawa, Inc., Michel Rey, Renee Rey, U.S. Growing Investments, Inc., U.S.
16
Investment Group Corporation, and Visitrade, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel
17
compliance (Dkt. 87).
18
On August 12, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for actual damages
19
and attorney’s fees pursuant to RCW 4.28.328(3). Dkt. 78. On September 10, 2014, the
20
Court determined the amount of that award. Dkt. 85. On October 23, 2013, Defendants
21
filed the instant motion requesting that the Court order Plaintiffs Jean Pierre Rey and Ilze
22

ORDER - 1

1 Silarasa (“Plaintiffs”) to pay the award by a certain date or be held in contempt. Dkt. 87.
2 On November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs responded arguing that the award was more akin to a
3 final judgment than a sanction, and Defendants should therefore seek execution of
4 judgment. Dkt. 89. On November 7, 2014, Defendants replied. Dkt. 90.
5

The parties fail to cite any binding authority for either position. In the absence of

6 any contrary authority, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the award is more akin to a
7 judgment instead of sanctions issued under the court’s inherent authority. The award was
8 granted pursuant to specific statutory guidelines and includes actual damages as well as
9 attorney’s fees. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion. Defendants may
10 request an amended judgment if they so desire.
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated this 13th day of November, 2014.

13

A

14
15

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2