United States District Court, D. Nevada
WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
order will address (1) Defendant Jeffrey Dickerson's
failure to appear at the court's status conference
scheduled for January 25, 2017, and (2) Dickerson's
transfer of funds from a retirement account in apparent
contravention of prior court orders, and to show cause why he
(Dickerson) should not be held in contempt thereby.
to Appear at Status Conference
December 2, 2016, Senior District Judge Larry R. Hicks
entered an order directing Dickerson to file a status report
concerning Dickerson's “compliance with all prior
court orders.” (ECF No. 291 at 2-3.) Dickerson
thereafter submitted a document entitled “Status Report
Per ECF No. 291" (ECF No. 292). The undersigned found
Dickerson's report did not satisfy the requirements of
Judge Hicks' order and directed Dickerson “to fully
supplement his report to provide all of the information
Defendant was directed to provide as per Judge Hicks'
order.” (ECF No. 293 at 2.) Dickerson's
supplemental report was due on or before January 6, 2017;
Plaintiff was directed to file a response on or before
January 20, 2017.
filed his supplemental report on January 6, 2017 (ECF No.
294). Plaintiff filed a response on January 6, 2017 (ECF No.
295), and a further response filed under seal, on January 17,
2017 (ECF No. 296).
January 10, 2017, the court directed the Courtroom
Administrator to coordinate the scheduling of a status
conference on Dickerson's reports and Plaintiff's
responses. After an exchange of emails on January 10, 2017,
between Mr. Dickerson and the Courtroom Administrator, Mr.
Dickerson confirmed his (Dickerson's) availability for
January 25, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. A Notice of Electronic Filing
of the scheduling of the telephonic January 25, 2017, status
conference was entered on January 10, 2017; a copy was mailed
to Dickerson at his address on the docket. (ECF No. 296.)
Quiroz telephoned the court at the appointed hour. When
Dickerson failed to call in for the conference, the Courtroom
Administrator called Mr. Dickerson's office only to be
transferred to voicemail. At approximately 10:15 a.m., the
undersigned personally telephoned Mr. Dickerson's office
and was similarly transferred to voicemail. The court then
reported Dickerson's failure to appear on the record.
(ECF No. 298.)
on or before February 3, 2017, Dickerson is
therefore ordered to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt for failing to appear at the scheduled hearing.
of Funds from Dickerson Retirement Account(s)
Prohibition Against Transfer of Retirement Account
response to Dickerson's status reports (ECF Nos. 295
& 296) included extracts of Dickerson's 2015 Joint
Individual Tax Return (ECF No. 297 at 9-13). Under the
“Income” section of the return, Dickerson
reported distributions from “pensions and
annuities” in the amount of $146, 473, $14, 149 of
which was designated as taxable income. (Id. at 9,
¶ 16 a.) The balance of $132, 324 would presumably have
been received by Dickerson as taxable income. Regardless of
whether the funds withdrawn were taxable or non-taxable, it
is apparent Dickerson withdrew $146, 473 from his retirement
court is gravely troubled by reason of this distribution.
First, this court has previously - on two occasions - ordered
that until the issue of the exempt/non-exempt nature of
Defendant's retirement accounts could be ascertained,
Defendant was precluded from attempting to transfer any funds
from what the court noted were Defendant's
“business and/or retirement or retirement-type accounts
maintained by Mr. Dickerson and/or his law office with
several different institutions.” (ECF No. 218 at 2, 3.)
(November 25, 2014.)
discussions the court and parties undertook regarding the
retirement accounts was whether Quiroz could attempt to levy
or execute against the funds in such accounts. See, e.g., ECF
No. 215, et seq. If the accounts were exempt from execution
by reason of state or federal law, then Quiroz would not be
entitled to execute against them. However, this court never
reached that issue (ECF No. 35) nor did the court ever
address the issue of whether the funds in an exempt
retirement account would lose that exempt status upon
distribution to the beneficiary.
declining to rule in November of 2014 on the exempt nature of
the retirement accounts, the court approximately two months
later again prohibited Dickerson from transferring funds out
of such accounts. ...