U.S. v. Busey-Ferrari, 2:08CR00401-LKK. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181024869
Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Virginia Busey-Ferrari ("Ferrari")'s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay enforcement of the final judgment entered herein on August 30, 2018. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff contends she has no right to the funds in the Virginia Ferrari Irrevocable Trust under Washington state law, such that granting the Government's request for a writ of garn
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant Virginia Busey-Ferrari ("Ferrari")'s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay enforcement of the final judgment entered herein on August 30, 2018. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff contends she has no right to the funds in the Virginia Ferrari Irrevocable Trust under Washington state law, such that granting the Government's request for a writ of garni..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION OF DEFENDANT FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Virginia Busey-Ferrari ("Ferrari")'s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay enforcement of the final judgment entered herein on August 30, 2018. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff contends she has no right to the funds in the Virginia Ferrari Irrevocable Trust under Washington state law, such that granting the Government's request for a writ of garnishment was impermissible, but she later admits the Trust is a spendthrift trust in which she has a beneficial interest, ECF No. 28 at 3. Accordingly, her interest in the funds held by the trust was garnishable. See 28 U.S.C. § 3002(12). Any finding to the contrary would mean she lacked standing to appeal the Court's decision in her individual capacity in any event. Finally, Plaintiff has indicated that if required to post a bond to support her request for a stay, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), she would withdraw the motion. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show she is entitled to a stay or that she would comply with the Rules if one was granted, and her Motion, ECF No. 24, is thus DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
