Van Dyke v. Balance Point Retirement Analytics LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 11, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-02531·Unknown

Opinion

WILLIAM A. GOULD, JR. (SBN 35446) wgould@wilkefleury.com MATTHEW W. POWELL (SBN 114563) mpowell@wilkefleury.com DANIEL L. EGAN (SBN 142631) degan@wilkefleury.com AARON R. CLAXTON (SBN 314822) aclaxton@wilkefleury.com 400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Van Dyke, in his individual capacity, and James Van Dyke and Connie Jerome as the Trustees of the Van Dyke’s Rice Dryer Profit Sharing Plan

No. 2:18-cv-02531-MCE-DB James Van Dyke in his individual capacity; James Van Dyke and Connie Jerome as Trustees of the Van Dyke’s Rice Dryer Profit Sharing Plan, ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT Plaintiffs, DEBTOR BALANCE POINT RETIREMENT ANALYTICS, LLC, v. MARY CLAIRE BARNACK, CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER Balance Point Retirement Analytics, LLC and DOES 1-25, Date: September 25, 2020 Time: 9:30 a.m. Defendants. Courtroom: 27 Judge: Hon. Deborah Barnes

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs James Van Dyke, in his individual capacity, and James Van Dyke and Connie Jerome as Trustees for the Van Dyke Rice Dryer Profit Sharing Plan (Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors) have applied for an Order to take the examination of Judgment Debtor Balance Point Retirement Analytics, LLC (Balance Point) through its Chief Operations Officer, Mary Claire Barnack on September 25, 2020 at 9:30 am at via Zoom videoconference. For the following reasons, this Court grants the Application. II. BACKGROUND FACTS On November 5, 2019, a Stipulated Judgment (“Judgment”) was entered in favor of Plaintiffs against Balance Point in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Declaration of Matthew W. Powell (“Powell Dec.”), ¶ 2, Exhibit A). Approximately one month prior thereto, a Stipulated Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the companion action against Robert Barnack, the Chief Executive Officer of Balance Point Retirement Analytics, LLC. Plaintiffs brought an adversary proceeding against Mr. Barnack in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California. That adversary proceeding was withdrawn and the matter returned to the District Court. On October 15, 2019, a Stipulated Judgment was entered in the action In re Robert Scott Barnack (Case No. 2-19-CV- 00073-MCE-DB). (Powell Decl. ¶ 2, (Exhibit B).) Collectively, Mr. Barnack and Balance Point are referred to as “Defendants.” The Judgment was entered in the amount of two million, five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) and required Defendants to make payments to Plaintiffs in accordance with a payment schedule included in the Judgments. (Powell Decl. ¶ 3.) Balance Point, through its Chief Executive Officer, Robert Scott Barnack, made the first payment of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) and the second payment of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). (Powell Dec. ¶ 3.) However, Defendants defaulted on the Judgments by failing to make the March 31, 2020 payment. (Powell immediately declare a default. Instead, in light of the local shelter-in-place orders, Plaintiffs granted Defendants an extension to April 30, 2020. That date passed without payment. (Powell Dec. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs granted Defendants a second extension to June 1, 2020, which also passed without payment. (Id.) Plaintiffs granted Defendants a third extension to June 8, 2020, based on Defendants’ representation that payment was on its way. That date also passed without payment. (Id.) Defendants thereafter defaulted on the Judgment by failing to make the June 30, 2020 payment. (Powell Decl. ¶ 6.) The outstanding amount owed to Plaintiffs is two million, two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000). (Powell Dec. ¶ 3.) By this Application, Plaintiffs seek to conduct a debtor’s examination of Mary Claire Barnack. Not only is Ms. Barnack the wife of Defendant Robert Barnack, Ms. Barnack was, at all relevant times to the action, the Chief Operations Officers for Balance Point. Ms. Barnack is also listed as a founding partner and principal of Balance Point. Her duties at Balance Point included responsibility for its operational and accounting matters. Among the areas of inquiry will be the various uses made of the money the Plaintiffs paid to Balance Point. (Powell Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8, Ex. D at pp. 4, 24.) Plaintiffs also intend to examine Ms. Barnack regarding the assets and liabilities of her husband. Among the areas of inquiry will be Mr. Barnack’s actions while he was serving as the Chief Executive Officer of Balance Point, as well as his employment from 2016 through the date of the examination. Ms. Barnack will also be examined regarding Mr. Barnack’s use of funds flowing through the accounts maintained by Balance Point to Mr. Barnack, Ms. Barnack and their daughter, Meredith Barnack. Finally, Ms. Barnack will be examined regarding the source of funds used by Mr. Barnack to make the first two payments to Plaintiffs. The scope of the examination of Ms. Barnack will be wide-ranging as Plaintiffs attempt to discover assets that they can use to satisfy the $2,200,000 balance that is presently due and payable under the terms of the Stipulated Judgments against Balance Point and Robert Scott Barnack. (Powell Decl. ¶ 9.) DISCUSSION Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(l ), “[t]he procedure on execution - and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution - must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” “[T]he procedure on execution is to be in accordance with the procedure of the state in which the district court is located at the time the remedy is sought.” In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 536 F.3d 980, 987-988 (9th Cir. 2008). In turn, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 708.110 provides, in relevant part: (a) The judgment creditor may apply to the proper court for an order requiring the judgment debtor to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. (b) If the judgment creditor has not caused the judgment debtor to be examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall make the order upon ex parte application of the judgment creditor. (c) If the judgment creditor has caused the judgment debtor to be examined under this section during the preceding 120 days, the court shall make the order if the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise shows good cause for the order. The application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule so requires. Otherwise, it may be made ex parte. (d) The judgment creditor shall personally serve a copy of the order on the judgment debtor not less than 10 days before the date set for the examination. Service shall be made in the manner specified in Section 415.10. Service of the order creates a lien on the personal property of the judgment debtor for a period of one year from the date of the order unless extended or sooner terminated by the court. (e) The order shall contain the following statement in 14-point boldface type if printed or in capital letters if typed: “NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may make an order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this proceeding.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 708. l

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Van Dyke v. Balance Point Retirement Analytics LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Van Dyke v. Balance Point Retirement Analytics LLC (Van Dyke v. Balance Point Retirement Analytics LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Feldman
324 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (C.D. California, 2004)
Alcalde v. Nac Real Estate Investments & Assignments, Inc.
580 F. Supp. 2d 969 (C.D. California, 2008)