United States District Court, D. Idaho
Eta Compute, Inc. Plaintiff,
Timothy D. Semones; Susan Desko; Inphi Partners, LLC; Susan Desko, P.C., and DOES 1 through 50. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge.
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.
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.
conclusion of the January 2, 2019 hearing, the Court
indicated that its intended ruling would encompass the
(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
(e) Fifth, the Court authorized the imposition of a lien on
Defendant Timothy Semones' stock in Plaintiff Eta
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
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 ...