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.

K.A. Holdings Ltd. v. Chagaris

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

April 5, 2018

K.A. HOLDINGS LTD. OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CHAGARIS, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Max O. Cogburn Jr., United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER is before the court on reference back to the presiding judge by the Clerk of Court in accordance with Chapter 1-352 of the North Carolina General Statutes, which guide this Court under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil of Procedure.

         It appears from the pleadings that the execution upon this Court's 2013 Judgment against defendant has been returned unsatisfied and that defendant has not been cooperative in providing information concerning his assets. In June 2017, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Defendant to Appear and Answer Concerning his Property.” The Clerk of Court, who is charged under Rule 69 with executions of Judgments, entered an Order on February 26, 2018, providing in relevant part as follows:

(1) A hearing before the Clerk's designee on April 10, 2018, at 2 p.m.;
(2) That plaintiff file a “detailed brief” by March 16, 2018, concerning a number of matters; and
(3) That defendant file a “detailed response” by March 30, 2018.

         Order (#148). Distressingly, the Clerk of Court reports that plaintiff did not comply with the March 16, 2018, deadline. Upon inquiry, Attorney Ty K. McTier, who signed the motion, informed the Clerk of Court that he had never received the Order. Upon looking into the matter further, Mr. McTier informed the Clerk of Court that the reason he never received the Order was that he never entered a Notice of Appearance before filing the motion. Such misstep is a violation of L.CvR. 81.1(e). Review of the Court's NEF entered upon the transmittal of that Order reveals, however, that two attorneys of record for plaintiff (and who appear to work at the same firm as Mr. McTier) received notification:

(1) David G. Redding, at dredding@tisonreddinglaw.com and at redding@tisonreddinglaw.com), and
(2) Joseph Raymond Pellington, at jpellington@tisonreddinglaw.com.

         While mistakes are made by all, including this Court, it is difficult to comprehend how three emails to counsel of record for the moving party went unheeded, especially in light of the nature of this action.

         The Court will, therefore, take over this judgment enforcement proceeding as well as all further ancillary matters under Chapter 1-352. Rather than impose a sanction, all counsel for both sides will now be required to acknowledge receipt of this Court's Orders and confirm compliance therewith as outlined below.

         ORDER

         IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that

         (1) The April 10, 2018, before the Clerk's designee is CANCELLED, and the Clerk of Court's designee is ...


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.