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.

Eta Compute, Inc. v. Semones

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 8, 2019

Eta Compute, Inc. Plaintiff,
v.
Timothy D. Semones; Susan Desko; Inphi Partners, LLC; Susan Desko, P.C., and DOES 1 through 50. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          B. Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         On January 2, 2019, the Court held a hearing for an Order to Show Cause why a writ of attachment should not issue in accordance with the Court's prior Order (Dkt. 12). During the hearing, the Court issued an oral ruling. This written order supplements and clarifies that ruling.

         Additionally, after the January 2, 2019 hearing, Defendants filed a Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration that Vehicles Must Not Be Sold After Attachment Because There is No. Judgment As Required Under Idaho Code § 8-506 And It is Not in the Best Interest of the Parties (Dkt. 23). Having reviewed this post-hearing motion, as well as Plaintiff's application, the supporting affidavits, Defendants' filing in response to the Order to Show Cause (Dkts. 20, 20-1, and 20-2), additional documents submitted by Plaintiff's at the hearing, testimony presented at the hearing, and the arguments of counsel, the Court now issues this written decision to supplement and clarify the oral ruling.

         DISCUSSION

         At the conclusion of the January 2, 2019 hearing, the Court indicated that its intended ruling would encompass the following:

(a) First, the Court indicated that it would maintain the attachment of the bank accounts as previously ordered. See Dec. 21, 2018 Order, Dkt. 13.
(b) Second, the Court ordered defendants to make a full accounting to plaintiffs within seven days of transactions into and out of these banks accounts.
(c) Third, the Court indicated that it would attach all but two of defendants' vehicles.
(d) Fourth, the Court ordered defendants not to sell or encumber certain real property without first obtaining Court permission.
(e) Fifth, the Court authorized the imposition of a lien on Defendant Timothy Semones' stock in Plaintiff Eta Compute, Inc.

         After the hearing, a dispute arose as to two issues: (1) the Court's intended order regarding the attachment of the Semones' vehicles; and (2) the Court's intended order regarding Defendant's ability to pay for living expenses and other obligations. The Court will address each issue in turn.

         1. The Vehicles

         The parties have apparently concluded that during the hearing, the Court intended to and did specifically order the prejudgment sale of five of Defendants' seven vehicles. That was not the Court's intent. Rather, at the hearing, the Court indicated that it would extend the previously issued writ of attachment to include all but two of Defendants' vehicles. Given plaintiffs' strong showing at the hearing and in the briefing, the Court fully anticipates that plaintiff will prevail in this action and that the vehicles eventually will be sold. For that reason, the Court expressly encouraged - but did not order - the parties to work together for the disposition of the attached vehicles because a sheriff's sale likely would not maximize the sales price. (Indeed, the Court more generally encouraged the parties to work together settle, based on its belief that these sorts of cases generally should be settled as quickly as possible.) But the Court's intent at the hearing was not to ...


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.