Hicks v. Cadle Company et al
| Kerry R. Hicks |
| Cadle Company, Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd., William E. Shaulis and Daniel C. Cadle |
| 1:2009mc00007 |
| February 5, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Sara Lioi |
| Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
125
Order: Cadle's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Cadle's argument that his due process rights have been violated and that this forms a basis for quashing Hicks's writs is without merit, and the motions are denied in this regard. While notice was not statutorily sufficient, Cadle was not prejudiced thereby, and his motions to quash the writs have been considered by this Court prior to any seizure of his property. That being said, Hicks is once again instructed th at he should follow the notice provisions under Ohio law from henceforward, and that he must re-file with proper notice the praecipes currently being held in abeyance by the Court before the Clerk of Court issues the related writs. (Docs. 82 , 83 . ) Cadle is incorrect that his stocks cannot be levied upon by means of a writ of execution. He is further incorrect that the writs are overly vague. To the extent that his assets may have been pledged to others, this is an issue that must be resolve d after the property has been seized, and does not suffice as a basis for quashing the writs at issue here. These arguments are without merit and the motions are denied in these respects. Cadle's motion is granted with respect to his arguments t hat his membership in limited liability companies and his interest in limited partnerships may not be levied upon directly. Hicks may only proceed against those assets by means of a judicial charging order pursuant to R.C. Sections 1705.19 1782.41. (Related Doc # 71 , 84 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 8/19/2011.(P,J)
|
|
Filing
29
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order: Hicks's motion (Doc. No. 24 ) is granted with respect to costs under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1920 and 1921 and denied, without prejudice with respect to sanctions under this Court's inherent power. Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for $756.18 in costs to Hicks. (Related Doc # 27 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 7/9/2009. (P,J)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
