Now Updating
In re: DAVID C. GOAD

Summarizing by Amir Shachmurove

In re 2920 ER, L.L.C.

Citation:
In re 2920 ER, L.L.C., No. 14-20734 (5th Cir. April 2, 2015)
Tag(s):
Ruling:
The 5th Circuit denied petition for mandamus relief, but vacated the district court's order (S.D. Tx.) prohibiting judgment debtor from transferring funds, and compelling postjudgment discovery, because district court had not yet entered final judgment, and the orders did not comply with Rules 64 or 65. Judgment debtor petitioned for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate district's order after district court denied debtor's motion for interlocutory appeal. Fifth Circuit denied the petition for writ, however, found that because the district court's order was effectively an injunction, petitioner could have obtained an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 USC 1292, and consequently, petition for writ would be treated as timely filed, and adequately noticed, interlocutory appeal. Based on 5th Circuit's proper appellate jurisdiction, 5th Circuit vacated district court's orders as being an abuse of discretion, in failing to comply with the injunctive prejudgment remedies under FRCP 64 or 65, and with FRCP 69 being inapplicable as the judgment was not yet final.
Procedural context:
District court entered what it called "partial judgment" in response to several motions for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiff, including ordering that plaintiff was entitled to approximately $8.4 million on one of its multiple claims. District court denied request to certify judgment as final. District court subsequently entered "postjudgment" orders granting plaintiff's motions for "postjudgment" discovery against petitioner defendant and directing directing petitioner defendant to cease transfers of funds without prior approval from the court. Petitioner requested district court's approval to file an interlocutory appeal, which district court denied. Judgment debtor petitioned 5th Circuit for writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate district's "postjudgment" orders, i.e., the orders granting judgment creditor post-judgment "damages" discovery and directing debtor to refrain from transferring funds prior to entering final judgment.
Facts:
Petitioner defendant was one of three unlicensed health care clinics that improperly used the billing code of a licensed four bed "hospital" in rural Texas to obtain millions of dollars in insurance reimbursements from Aetna Life Insurance. Aetna sued the unlicensed clinics, including petitioner, on various claims including fraud, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The district court entered what it called "partial judgment" in response to several motions for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiff, including ordering that plaintiff was entitled to approximately $8.4 million on one of its multiple claims. District court denied request to certify judgment as final. Aetna discovered that petitioner was actively transferring large sums of money to third party entities. Aetna filed motion requesting order preventing petitioner from transferring funds without prior court approval, and for "damages" discovery. District court granted motion, and entered "postjudgment" orders granting plaintiff's motions for "postjudgment" discovery against petitioner defendant and directing petitioner defendant to cease transfers of funds without prior approval from the court. Petitioner requested district court's approval to file an interlocutory appeal, which district court denied. Judgment debtor petitioned 5th Circuit for writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate district's "postjudgment" orders, i.e., the orders granting judgment creditor post-judgment "damages" discovery and directing debtor to refrain from transferring funds prior to entering final judgment.
Judge(s):
Prado, Owen, Higginson

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3414 in the system

3292 Summarized

2 Being Processed