United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendants RC Willey Financial Services
(“RC Willey”) and Richland Holdings, Inc.'s,
d/b/a/ AcctCorp of Southern Nevada (“AcctCorp”)
(collectively, “defendants”) motion for
attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 82). Plaintiffs Dany Geraldo
and Wendoly Guzman (“plaintiffs”) filed a late
response without leave of the court (ECF No. 88), to which
defendants replied (ECF No. 91).
before the court is plaintiffs' second motion to extend
time to file a response to defendants' motion for
attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 87). Defendants filed a
response to the motion. (ECF No. 90). Plaintiffs have not
filed a reply, and the time to do so has passed.
motion arises out of the court's grant of dismissal of
plaintiff's claims and the subsequent motion and
appellate practice that transpired thereafter.
26, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims against them, with prejudice, on the
basis of claim preclusion. (ECF No. 23). On August 9, 2017,
defendants filed their first motion for attorneys' fees.
(ECF No. 28). On August 14, 2017, while the motion for
attorneys' fees was in the process of being briefed by
the parties, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal of the
court's order granting dismissal. (ECF No. 30).
March 29, 2018, after full briefing on plaintiffs'
appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court's decision
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. (ECF No.
41). The following day, the court granted defendants'
motion for attorneys' fees, awarding defendants a total
of $34, 853.50 in fees and $1, 495.61 in costs. (ECF No. 40).
In its order, the court held that plaintiffs brought the suit
in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment and awarded
defendants attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
dismissal of the case was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit and
attorneys' fees judgments were entered on behalf of RC
Willey and AcctCorp, defendants made efforts toward
collection, including filing a motion (and amended motion)
for a judgment debtor exam (“JDE”). (ECF Nos. 51,
53). On June 6, 2018, Magistrate Judge Leen granted
defendants' motion for JDEs, ordering plaintiffs to
produce certain financial documents on or before June 20,
2018, and appear for the JDEs at the law offices of
defendants' counsel on June 27, 2018. (ECF No. 56).
failed to produce the financial documents as ordered by
Magistrate Judge Leen by the date specified. (ECF No. 58).
Instead, plaintiffs filed a motion for stay of execution on
June 23, 2018, offering to post a surety bond in the amount
of $39, 698.43. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiffs also did not appear
for their court-ordered JDEs on June 27, 2018. See
(ECF Nos. 58-2, 58-3). Accordingly, defendants filed a motion
for contempt sanctions on July 5, 2018, to compensate
defendants' counsel for fees and costs incurred as a
result of plaintiffs' failure to appear. (ECF No. 58).
19, 2018, while defendants' motion for contempt sanctions
was still pending, plaintiffs filed an
“emergency” motion for protective order “to
protect [p]laintiffs from the annoyance, oppression,
embarrassment, and undue burden stemming from
[defendants' motion for JDEs] . . .” (ECF No. 61).
Subsequently, this court denied plaintiffs' motion for
stay of execution and Magistrate Judge Leen denied
plaintiffs' motion for protective order. (ECF Nos. 64,
30, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second motion for stay of
execution, again offering to post a surety bond, this time in
the amount of $42, 532.21. (ECF No. 65). However, in
plaintiffs' reply brief on the motion, plaintiffs
informed the court that “circumstances” had
changed, and that they found “themselves without the
financial means to secure the collateral needed for the
proposed bonds.” (ECF No. 72). Accordingly, plaintiffs
requested that the court grant their motion for stay of
execution without posting a bond. Id. The court
subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion for their failure
to post a bond or cite adequate authority to convince the
court that the posting of a bond was unnecessary.
See (ECF No. 83).
August 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge Leen held a hearing at
which she granted defendants' motion for contempt
sanctions and ordered plaintiffs to appear for rescheduled
JDEs. (ECF No. 74). At the hearing, Magistrate Judge Leen
admonished plaintiffs for bringing its various post-judgment
motions while simultaneously failing to appear for a
court-ordered obligation. (ECF No. 79 at 17) (hearing
transcript). When plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide
an adequate explanation for its actions, Magistrate Judge
Leen concluded that plaintiffs had acted in bad faith in
failing to attend the JDEs. Id. at 18.
September 12, 2018, plaintiffs appeared for their rescheduled
JDEs, which were to be conducted separately. (ECF Nos. 82-4,
82-5). At their respective JDEs, plaintiffs each denied ever
receiving notice from their counsel, Vernon Nelson
(“Nelson”), of the judgment entered against them
on defendants' first motion for attorneys' fees, nor
of their obligations to produce various financial documents
and attend the court-ordered JDEs. See Id. Moreover,
plaintiffs denied any knowledge of Nelson having filed the
various motions for stay of execution in which plaintiffs
represented their willingness and ability to post a surety
defendants move for fees and costs in the amount of $68,
478.42 to cover such expenditures incurred since the filing
of their first motion for attorneys' fees. (ECF No. 82).