Hatley v. Mullan

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 LARENA HATLEY, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-820-JCC-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 JOYCE L. MULLAN, 12 Defendant. 13

14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Larena Hatley’s Renewed Motion for 15 Issuance of Order Directing Defendant to Appear and Show Cause Why an Order Putting 16 Plaintiff in Immediate Possession of Personal Property Should Not Be Issued. (Renewed Show 17 Cause Mot. (dkt. # 33).) Ms. Hatley contemporaneously filed a Renewed Motion for Writ of 18 Replevin. (Renewed Replevin Mot. (dkt. # 34).) Defendant Joyce L. Mullan filed her Opposition 19 and Objection to the Replevin Motion (Def.’s Resp. (dkt. # 35)), and Ms. Hatley filed a reply 20 (Pl.’s Reply (dkt. # 36)). The Court held oral argument on the Renewed Show Cause Motion on 21 December 15, 2021. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, oral argument, the balance of the 22 record, and the governing law, the Court GRANTS the Renewed Show Cause Motion (dkt. 23 # 33). 1 Washington’s replevin statute provides that “[t]he plaintiff in an action to recover the 2 possession of personal property may claim and obtain the immediate delivery of such property, 3 after a hearing[.]”1 RCW 7.64.010. The plaintiff must apply to the Court “to issue an order 4 directing the defendant to appear and show cause why an order putting the plaintiff in immediate

5 possession of the personal property should not be issued.” RCW 7.64.020(1). In support of the 6 application, the plaintiff must provide an affidavit or declaration showing: (1) she “is the owner 7 of the property or is lawfully entitled to the possession of the property by virtue of a special 8 property interest”; (2) “the property is wrongfully detained by defendant”; (3) the property has 9 not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine; and (4) the “approximate value of the property.” 10 RCW 7.64.020(2). 11 Ms. Hatley has satisfied the statutory requirements through her verified complaint and 12 thus is entitled to a show cause hearing. (See Compl. (dkt. # 1).) Ms. Mullan’s argument that 13 conflicting statements in the complaint regarding the value of the property at issue should 14 prevent a show cause hearing is unavailing. (See Def.’s Resp. at 4-5.) RCW 7.64.020(2) does not

15 require final valuation of the property before a show cause hearing. 16 Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Ms. Hatley’s Renewed Show Cause Motion 17 (dkt. # 33) and ORDERS the parties to appear at a show cause hearing. The hearing will be on 18 the Zoom video platform and is set for February 2, 2022, at 1:30 pm. In compliance with RCW 19 7.64.020(3), Ms. Mullan is hereby notified that failure to promptly turn over possession of the 20 21

1 The state remedy is available in federal court through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64. The rule 22 provides that “every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing . . . property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(a). 23 Replevin is specifically mentioned as an available remedy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(b); see also BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Miller Transp. LLC, 2021 WL 1338478, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2021) (granting relief on plaintiff’s replevin claim by awarding an order of possession after default judgment). 1 property to the plaintiff or the sheriff, if an order awarding possession is issued under RCW 2 7.64.035(1), may subject her to being held in contempt of court. 3 Because the issues raised in the Renewed Replevin Motion will be addressed at the show 4 cause hearing, the Clerk is DIRECTED to renote the Renewed Replevin Motion (dkt. # 34) for

5 the Court’s consideration on February 2, 2022. 6 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable John 7 C. Coughenour. 8 Dated this 15th day of December, 2021. 9 A 10 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23