Tradewind Invest, LLC v. ITF Auto Parts, Inc.
Tradewind Invest, LLC v. ITF Auto Parts, Inc.
2020 WL 13122537 (M.D. Fla. 2020)
November 10, 2020
Irick, Daniel C., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court granted the motion in part, ordering ITF, WPF, and Wheel and Tire Performance to appear for depositions and to produce the documents requested in the subpoenas. The court denied the motion in all other respects, including the request for attorney fees and costs. The court noted that federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce their judgments and that Rule 69(a) provides the process for enforcing a money judgment.
TRADEWIND INVEST, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ITF AUTO PARTS, INC., WILSON HENRIQUE TRILHA FILHO and WHEEL PERFORMANCE OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants
v.
ITF AUTO PARTS, INC., WILSON HENRIQUE TRILHA FILHO and WHEEL PERFORMANCE OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants
Case No. 6:18-cv-1344-Orl-40DCI
United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed November 10, 2020
Counsel
Jason R. Hawkins, South Milhausen, PA, Jon E. Kane, Mateer & Harbert, PA, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff.Charles M. Greene, Brandon Wayne Banks, Brian Michael Walsh, Charles M. Greene, PA, Walsh Law Group, Orlando, FL, for Defendant.
Wheel Performance of Florida, LLC, Pro Se
Irick, Daniel C., United States Magistrate Judge
Order
*1 This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:
MOTION: Motion for Contempt and Sanctions Against ITF Auto Parts, Inc., Wheel Performance of Florida, LLC and Wheel and Tire Performance, LLC to Compel appearance at a Deposition in Aid of Execution, and to Compel Production of Subpoenaed Documents (Doc. 126)
FILED: October 16, 2020
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part.
On October 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed the amended complaint in this case against Defendants ITF Auto Parts, Inc. (ITF), Wheel Performance of Florida, LLC (WPF), and Wilson Henrique Trilha Filho (Trilha). Doc. 34 (the Complaint).[1] On December 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to ITF and Trilha. Doc. 100. On December 17, 2019, final judgment was entered against those Defendants. Doc. 104. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Renewed Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment against WPF. Doc. 119. On April 15, 2020, the Court entered an order adopting and confirming the report and recommendation filed on March 31, 2020, which granted Plaintiff a default judgment on Count I of the Complaint. Doc. 121. On May 13, 2020 the amended final judgment against WPF was entered. Doc. 125.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Sanctions Against [ITF], [WPF], and Wheel and Tire Performance, LLC and to Compel Appearance at a Deposition in Aid of Execution, and to Compel Production of Subpoenaed Documents. Doc. 126 (the Motion). According to the Motion, Plaintiff issued subpoenas for depositions in aid of execution to set Defendants ITF and WPF, as well as non-party Wheel and Tire Performance, for deposition September 10, 2020. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also issued a subpoena for deposition in aid of execution to set Defendant WPF for deposition on September 29, 2020. Id. at 3. Plaintiff represents that the subpoenas also “commanded the Defendants to produce certain financial documents related to Plaintiff's judgment collection efforts.” Id. ITF, WPF, and Wheel and Tire Performance all failed to appear and have failed to produce the documents requested in the subpoenas. Id. Thus, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order holding ITF, WPF, and Wheel and Tire Performance in contempt; ordering ITF, WPF, and Wheel and Tire Performance to appear for depositions and to produce the documents requested in the subpoenas; and granting Plaintiff its attorney fees and costs incurred in the filing of the Motion. Doc. 126 at 3-4.
“[F]ederal courts have always had jurisdiction to enforce their judgments.” Sequoia Fin., Inc. v. Warren, 2017 WL 445713, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2017) (citing, Heaps v. Flanagan, 2008 WL 243976, at *6 (S.D. Ga. June 9, 2008)). “Rule 69(a) provides the process by which a judgment creditor can enforce a money judgment and authorizes post-judgment discovery in aid of execution of that judgment.” In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 1336 (11th Cir. 2007). Responses and objections to discovery requests must be made within 30 days of being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). A party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. The court may enter an order compelling discovery when a party fails to respond or make objections to discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
*2 Here, Plaintiff served the discovery requests and ITF, WPF, and Wheel and Tire Performance did not timely respond. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed the Motion seeking an order to compel responses. No responses to the Motion have been filed, and the time for filing such responses has elapsed. Accordingly, the request for relief is unopposed. See United States v. Arnao, 2017 WL 1251582, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2017) (citing M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(b)).
As to Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs, that request fails to contain a memorandum of legal authority in support of the relief requested, in violation of Local rule 3.01(a). Thus, the Court cannot determine whether an award of reasonable fees is appropriate.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Motion (Doc. 126) is GRANTED in part such that, on or before November 20, 2020, Defendants ITF and WPF, and non-party Wheel and Tire Performance, shall appear for depositions at the office of Plaintiff's counsel and produce the documents requested in Plaintiff's subpoenas; and
2. The Motion (Doc. 126) is DENIED in all other respects.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 10, 2020.
Footnotes
The amended complaint is a version of the original complaint, which was filed on August 16, 2018. See Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff amended the original complaint to include two additional defendants (Doc. 34 at 1-2) who were subsequently dropped as parties. See Doc. 59.