Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Benedict v. Fidelity Capital Holdings, Inc., CV 15-5252-SJO (AS). (2018)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20180925880 Visitors: 21
Filed: Sep. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2018
Summary: CERTIFICATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT ALKA SAGAR , Magistrate Judge . IT IS ORDERED that Third Party Witness Mary Dix shall appear on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge, and then and there shall show cause, if any, why Mary Dix should not be adjudged in contempt based upon the facts this Court has certified. If Third Party Witness Mary Dix objects to being held in contempt, she may fil
More

CERTIFICATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT

IT IS ORDERED that Third Party Witness Mary Dix shall appear on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable S. James Otero, United States District Judge, and then and there shall show cause, if any, why Mary Dix should not be adjudged in contempt based upon the facts this Court has certified.

If Third Party Witness Mary Dix objects to being held in contempt, she may file objections no later than October 26, 2018, and Judgment Creditor may file a response or memorandum supporting contempt no later than November 2, 2018.

Judgment Creditor shall promptly serve this Order on Third Party Witness Mary Dix by:

(a) personal delivery of this document to any adult present at the following address: 22413 Dardenne Street, Calabasas, California. 91302; and (b) mailing a copy of the document as follows: Mary Dix 22413 Dardenne Street Calabasas, California. 91302

Judgment Creditor shall file proofs of service as directed in this Order no later than 10 (ten) days prior to the hearing to show cause re contempt.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(e), the Magistrate Judge certifies the following facts:1

1) On October 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for an examination of third party witness Mary Dix. (Dkt. No. 47).

2) On October 6, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's request and issued an Order to Appear for Examination, set for December 7, 2017. The Order contained the following language: "APPEARANCE OF A THIRD PERSON (ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT — CALIFORNIA C.C.P. SECTION 708.120) ¶ NOTICE TO PERSON SERVED: If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding." (Dkt. No. 49 at 2).

3) Plaintiff was unable to effectuate service of process by the date set for the judgment debtor exam; therefore, Plaintiff requested an order for a brief continuation of the examination date. (Dkt. No. 51).

4) The Court granted Plaintiff's request and continued the judgment debtor exam to January 25, 2018. (Dkt. No. 56).

5) Still unable to effectuate service of the Order, on January 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for a second continuance of the debtor examination to March 8, 2018, which was granted by the Court. (Dkt. No. 75).

6) The Order to Appear for Examination was personally served on Ms. Dix on January 20, 2018, at 22413 Dardenne St., Calabasas, CA 91302, by specially appointed person, Larion Krayzman. The proof of service was filed on February 1, 2018. (Dkt. No. 81).

7) On March 8, 2018, the date set for the judgment debtor exam, Steven A. Simons, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Mary Dix failed to appear. Therefore, the Court continued the examination to April 12, 2018. Plaintiff was ordered to serve notice on Ms. Dix. (Dkt. No. 84).

8) Plaintiff's counsel served the order continuing the third party witness examination to April 12, 2018 via U.S. mail to Ms. Dix's residence at 22413 Dardenne St., Calabasas, CA 91302. The proof of service was filed on April 3, 2018. (Dkt. No. 92).

9) On April 12, 2018, the date set for the continued judgment debtor exam, Steven A. Simons, Esq. again appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Mary Dix, for the second time, failed to appear. (Dkt. No. 93).

10) On May 9, 2016, Judgment Creditor filed a Request for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt, accompanied by a proposed Order to Show Cause and Certified Facts. (Dkt. Nos. 97, 99). Rather than adopt the proposed Order, the Court issues the present Order and certification.

FootNotes


1. The question of whether Mary Dix should be held in contempt on these certified facts, and the question of the appropriate sanctions to be imposed, if any, are commended to the District Judge for his consideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e); see also Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir. 1996); Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 903-908 (3rd Cir. 1992). The limited contempt powers granted to Magistrate Judges in the "Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000" do not extend to the circumstances presented in the instant case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer