Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Case 1:10-cv-00755-RJJ Doc #284 Filed 11/30/12 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#1993

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL KORREY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-755 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER MERLE FERGUSON, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND EMERGENCY RELIEF This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Freeze the assets of Defendant Worldwide Food Services, Inc., and to enjoin the same Defendant from moving its offices outside the United States, as Defendant has stated in a public press release it plans to do. Plaintiff also requests expedited consideration. Defendant Worldwide, in addition to the two individual Defendants--is a judgment debtor to Plaintiff in the principal amount of $564,191 (docket # 132). This Judgment entered on January 24, 2012. The collection process for Plaintiff has generated a great deal of activity in the Court file. If fact, there have been 151 new docket entries on the file since entry of the Judgment. It only took 132 docket entries from the start of the case to get to the Judgment in the first place. The main reason for the unusual post-judgment practice is, in the Court's view, the repeated and welldocumented record of conduct by each of the Defendants that demonstrates nothing but contempt for the Court and its Judgment. The Court has already entered one post-Judgment order finding one or more Defendants in contempt of court (docket # 208). That Order has had no noticeable impact

Case 1:10-cv-00755-RJJ Doc #284 Filed 11/30/12 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#1994

on bringing Defendants into compliance with the Court's post-Judgment orders requiring Defendants, among other things, to provide Plaintiff with information to which Plaintiff is entitled in the collection process. In fact, Plaintiff has filed a Second Motion for Contempt (docket #226) urging the Court to exercise its power to authorize arrest of the individual Defendants for the purposes of compelling their compliance with the information obligations placed upon them in previous court orders. The Court has that Motion under advisement, but the information in Plaintiff's Emergency Motion today provides new urgency for decision on it. Based on the record as it currently stands, the Court is satisfied that Expedited Consideration of the new Motion (docket # 282) is warranted, and the Court accordingly takes up the new Motion without delay. The Court is further satisfied for two independent reasons that the core of Plaintiff's requested relief in the new Motion is warranted. In particular, the Court is satisfied that an order enjoining Defendants from moving the assets and offices of Defendant Worldwide outside of the jurisdiction is fully supported and warranted by the record as 1) necessary to support proper Judgment collection efforts authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); Mich. Comp. L. 600. 6104; and Miko Enters. v. Allegan Nursing Home, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-988, 2010 WL 148659, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2010) (Quist, J.); and 2) in support of the Court's previous contempt finding as a remedy designed to compel obedience and compensate injuries, under the authority previously cited by the Court (docket # 208). In addition, even if the Court did not have these independent sources of authority for the relief requested in the new Emergency Motion, Plaintiff has at least provided a basis, considering the whole record of the case, for what would normally justify an ex parte TRO under Rule 65. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion (docket # 282) is GRANTED, and that Defendants, and all those in active concert with them, are ENJOINED from

Case 1:10-cv-00755-RJJ Doc #284 Filed 11/30/12 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#1995

1) transferring any asset of Defendant Worldwide Food Services, Inc., outside of the United States; and 2) moving the offices of Defendant Worldwide Food Services, Inc., outside of the United States. The Court recognizes that it is granting this relief without providing Defendants the opportunity to respond. The Court is doing so for several reasons. First, Defendants have already demonstrated contempt for the lawful process and orders of the Court, as previously found by the Court. Second, Defendants have not purged or attempted to purge that contempt. Third, Defendants have not even responded to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Contempt (docket # 226), which has been pending since October 1, 2012. Fourth, the circumstances outlined by Plaintiff, which include a public press release, demonstrate the need for immediate action to prevent actions on the ground from mooting the possibility of meaningful relief. Of course, Defendants have the ability to move at any time to dissolve or modify this Order if they believe they have a proper basis for doing so. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

November 30, 2012

/s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE