Van Dyke v. Balance Point Retirement Analytics LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 19, 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: January 15, 2021 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 January, 15 2021 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 That adversary proceeding was withdrawn and the matter returned to the District Court.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.) On August 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Application For An Order For Appearance And Examination Of Judgment Debtor Balance Point Analytics Retirement, LLC, Mary Claire Barnack, Chief Operations Officer. (EMC No. 18). On August 11, 2020, United State Magistrate Judge Debra Barnes issued an order requiring Balance Point through its Chief Operations Officer to appear for an examination on September 25, 2020. After the debtor’s examination was scheduled, Barnack delivered a cashier’s check to Plaintiffs’ counsel for $70,000 and represented that he would pay an additional $130,000 by August 31, 2020. August 31, 2020 passed without Barnack making the $130,000 payment, so Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out to Barnack’s counsel to determine when the payment would be made. On September 3, 2020, Barnack, through his counsel, represented that he could definitely pay the $130,000 on September 28, 2020 and an additional $100,000 on October 28, 2020. That representation is was memorialized in an exchange of emails between Barnack’s counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Powell Decl. ¶ 7; Ex D.) Based on Barnack’s payment of $70,000 and his assurance that he could definitely pay an additional $130,000 by September 28, 2020, Plaintiffs withdrew their request to take the examination of Balance Point. (EMC No. 20.) Despite his assurance that the $130,000 would definitely be paid on September 28, 2020, Barnack did not deliver a cashier’s check to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel promptly reached out to Barnack’s counsel to ask when they payment due on September 28, 2020 would be made. Through his counsel, Barnack represented that he would deliver the check for $130,000 to Plaintiffs’ counsel sometime that week. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Barnack’s counsel when with Barnack. As of the date this application was filed, there had been no further payments on the amounts due and presently owing under the terms of the Judgments. The amount presently owed to Plaintiffs’ is two million, one hundred thirty thousand dollars ($2,130,000). (Powell Decl. ¶ 9). 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. ¶¶ 11, Ex. F 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 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 $2,130,000 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 Plaintiffs have filed an application for a debtor’s examination and production of documents. 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 Litigation, 536 F.3d 980, 987-988 (9th Cir. 2008). In turn, California

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

Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc.
33 Cal. App. 4th 540 (California Court of Appeal, 1995)
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)