Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Enterprise Bank & Trust v. Vintage Ranch Investment, LLC

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 25, 2013

Enterprise Bank & Trust, a Missouri chartered trust company, Plaintiff,
v.
Vintage Ranch Investment, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; M. Laurin Hendrix and Evelyn Hendrix, husband and wife, Defendants.

ORDER

LAWRENCE O. ANDERSON, District Judge.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Enterprise Bank & Trust's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Substitution of Non-Party. (Doc. 44) Despite Plaintiff's notice pursuant to Rule 5(a)(1), no response has been filed by Defendants/Judgment Debtors or their counsel. The original parties expressly consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73, Fed.R.Civ.P. (Doc. 19) This Magistrate Judge retains full jurisdiction herein even though Plaintiff's successor in interest, Yellowdog Investments, LLC, has not consented. See Kowalski v. Mommy Gina Tuna Resources, 2008 WL 2971508 (D. Haw. Aug. 1, 2008).

Generally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) authorizes a person or legal entity with an interest in an action "to be substituted in the action" for an original party.[1] See generally In re Bernal, 207 F.3d 595, 598 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 25(c) is purely procedural and does not confer any substantive rights. Hilbrands v. Far East Trading Co., Inc., 509 F.2d 1321, 1323 (9th Cir. 1975). "Substitution may be ordered after judgment has been rendered in the district court for the purpose of subsequent proceedings to enforce judgment." JATSB, LLC v. Timeshare Beat, Inc., 2008 WL 4809484, at *2 (D. Haw. Nov. 4, 2008) (quoting Explosives Corp. of Am. v. Garlam Enters. Corp., 817 F.2d 894, 907 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing 3B J. Moore, & J. Kennedy, Moore's Federal Practice § 25.03 at 25-27 (1987)). "The decision to allow substitution is left to the district court's discretion." In re USA Commercial Mortg. Co., 2009 WL 1490568, at *3 (D. Nev. April 20, 2009), affirmed by In re USA Commercial Mortg. Co., 397 Fed.Appx. 300 (9th Cir. 2010)).

The public records of the Arizona Corporation Commission confirm Yellowdog Investments, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company, authorized to do business in the State of Arizona. (www.azcc.gov, last viewed on June 25, 2013)

Plaintiff's motion will be granted because Plaintiff has assigned its interest in the April 16, 2012 Judgment to Yellowdog Investments, LLC on May 16, 2013.

There being no objection and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Enterprise Bank & Trust's Motion for Substitution of Non-Party, doc. 44. is GRANTED. Plaintiff's successor in interest, Yellowdog Investments, LLC, is hereby substituted in this action and Judgment for Enterprise Bank & Trust, a Missouri chartered trust company.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.