Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FDIC as Receiver for Amtrust Bank v. Lewis

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 23, 2018

FDIC as Receiver for AMTRUST BANK, f/k/a Ohio Savings Bank, a federal savings bank; IOTA VIOLET, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; IOTA CORAL, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; RECOVEREDGE, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; IOTA CINNAMON, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; IOTA RED, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and IOTA ROYAL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants,
v.
REX H. LEWIS, an individual, CORRALES PETERS LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; BARTLETT SUNRISE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; COTTONGIN, LLC, Nevada limited liability company; MIDWAY CORNMAN, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; PEBBLE CIMARRON LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; MESA VERDE, INC., a Nevada limited liability company; JONAH LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; REGENA TEEPEE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; HH INV, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; OMEGA VISTA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; ALPHA VISTA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOE DEFENDANTS I through X, inclusive; Defendants/Counter-claimants. v.

          Abran E. Vigil, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7548 Maria A. Gall, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 14200 Joseph P. Sakai, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13578 BALLARD SPAHR LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants Iota Violet, LLC; Iota Coral, LLC; Iota Cinnamon, LLC; Iota Red, LLC; and Iota Royal, LLC

          ORDER FINDING REX H. LEWIS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court are the Judgment Creditors' Renewed Motion for an Order Holding Judgment Debtor Rex H. Lewis in Contempt (ECF No. 261), the Judgment Debtor Lewis's Response thereto (ECF No. 264), the Judgment Creditors' Reply in support thereof (ECF No. 267), as well as the Transcript of Proceedings for the evidentiary hearing held before Magistrate Judge Ferenbach on October 16, 2017 (ECF No. 288) and Judge Ferenbach's Order to Show Cause and Certification of Facts (ECF No. 286) resulting from that hearing. Also before the Court are Judgment Debtor Lewis's Objection to the Order to Show Cause and Certification of Facts (ECF No. 293), the Judgment Creditors' Response thereto (ECF No. 298) and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 299), the Judgment Debtor Lewis's Response to the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 300), and the Judgment Creditors' Reply in Support of the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 301). The Show Cause Hearing took place on March 19, 2018, at which time, and after having fully reviewed the record before it, the Court provided Judgment Debtor Lewis an opportunity to present new testimony and evidence along with an additional offer of proof from his attorney to demonstrate why Lewis should not be held in contempt. The Court further entertained and considered arguments of counsel, who were allowed to fully present arguments in support of their respective positions (see ECF No. 306).

         Accordingly, having been fully apprised of the facts and circumstances before it, the Court hereby finds Rex H. Lewis IN CONTEMPT of this Court's Orders compelling him to provide full and complete discovery (ECF Nos. 88 & 146) and now orders as follows:

         1. The Renewed Motion for an Order Holding Judgment Debtor Lewis in Contempt (ECF No. 261) is GRANTED.

         2. The Objection to the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 293) is DENIED AND OVERRULED.

         3. The Motion to Strike (ECF No. 299) is DENIED as moot.

         4. The Court accepts the facts certified to it by Magistrate Judge Ferenbach (see ECF No. 286).

         5. The Court further finds that the Judgment Debtor Lewis has not shown cause why he should not be held in contempt.

         6. The Court further finds the Judgment Debtor Lewis's explanations, offers of proof, positions, and arguments of counsel demonstrate that the Judgment Debtor has created an artificial mechanism, or ruse, by which to try to avoid compliance with this Court's Orders. Cf. FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is readily apparent that the [judgment debtors'] inability to comply with the district court's repatriation order is the intended result of their own conduct-their inability to comply and foreign trustee's refusal to comply appears to be the precise goal of the [judgment debtors'] trust.”); (see also ECF Nos. 88 and 146).

         7. Judgment Debtor Lewis is sanctioned $500.00 per day until he demonstrates that he has produced al documents and information related to the Holder Trust as requested by the Judgment Creditors in post-judgment discovery, including, without limitation, the following:

a. All documents relating to the formation of the Holder Trust, including the Memorandum of the Settlors referenced in the trust deed.
b. All trustee reports.
c. All due diligence questionnaires and responses ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.