United States of America v. Klosterman et al
| United States of America |
| John Klosterman and Susan Klosterman |
| 1:2018cv00194 |
| March 21, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| HAMILTON |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Housing/Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
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
113
ORDER granting 95 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree, as construed as a motion to reopen this case to Enforce the Consent Decree; granting 101 Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Substitute John Klosterman for Defendant Sus an Klosterman; adopting 103 Report and Recommendations except as to those portions regarding Defendants' remaining payment of monetary damages; the Court enters a finding of CIVIL CONTEMPT against both Defendant John Klosterman individually and as substitute for Susan Klosterman and includes provisions listed in the Order. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/21/2022. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
103
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 95 United States' Motion To Enforce the Consent Decree, 101 United States' Motion to Substitute Party John Klosterman for Defendant Susan Klosterman. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute John Klosterman for Defendant Susan Klosterman, 101 , should be GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Consent Decree, as construed as a motion to reopen this case to Enforce the Consent Decree 95 should be GRANTED;(3) The Court should enter a finding of civil contempt against both Defendant John Klosterman individually and as substitute for Susan Klosterman, and shall include the following provisions in the Contempt Order: (a) The term of the 10/1/2020 Decree should be extended until 7/1/2026; (b) The prefatory language in paragraph 13 and paragraph 22 of the 10/1/2020 Decree should be interpreted and/or formally reformed in the manner discussed herein; (c) The following prospective monetary sanctions should be added to the terms of the original 10/1/2020 Decree: (i) $100 per day shall be paid to the United States if, within ten days of the Court's Contempt Order, Defendant John Klosterman has not proposed to the United States a professional Indep endent Manager who has experience with property management and does not have a personal relationship with Defendants, pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Decree. Such daily fine shallcontinue until John Klosterman has made a proposal that complies with t herequirements of paragraph 13, but should not exceed 30 days absent furtherOrder of this Court; (ii) $100 per day shall be paid to the United States if, within 10 days of this Court's Contempt Order, Defendant John Klosterman has not propo sed to the United States Fair Housing Act training for himself and for any employees and agents pursuant to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Decree. Such daily fine shall continue until Defendant has made a proposal that complies with therequirements of t he Decree, but should not exceed thirty (30) days absentfurther Order of this Court; (iii) $100 per day shall be paid to the United States if, within 10 days of this Court's Contempt Order, Defendant John Klosterman has not completed deposi ts of $15,000.00 into an escrow account, with proof of the deposit demonstrated in the manner specified in paragraph 30 of the Decree. Such daily fine shall continue until Defendant has provided the requiredverification, but should not exceed 30 days absent further Order of thisCourt; (iv) $500 per incident shall be paid to the United States as an additional fine if, on any occasion following the Court's entry of a Contempt Order, Defendant John Klosterman engages in property mana gement responsibilities that are specifically prohibited by the terms of the Decree. The same fine of $500 per incident should be imposed if Defendant communicates with tenants orprospective tenants in violation of the Decree following the Court 's entry of aContempt Order. However, the fine(s) specified in this paragraph shall notexceed a total of $5,000 absent further Order of this Court, and may beexcused upon clear and convincing evidence by John Klosterman that communication w as required on an emergency basis, such as a conditionimpacting the ability of a tenant's home; (d) Within 10 days of the date of the Contempt Order, John Klosterman shall be required to provide to the United States a complete list of all rental properties that John and/or Susan Klosterman have owned, leased, managed, or otherwise controlled (directly or indirectly) beginning on 10/1/2020 through the present date. Said list shall be verified with a declaration made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 in order to ensure that the United States has a complete list of past and current holdings; (e) Within 10 days of the date of the Contempt Order, Defendant John Klosterman shall provide to the United States a full ac counting of incomes and expenses at all properties owned, leased, managed or controlled by Defendants outside of the Receivership since 10/1/2020, including bankrecords, rent receipts, and receipts for any expenses for the maintenance ofthe propertie s which Defendants maintain should be deducted from thecalculation of profits. Following receipt of this information, the United Statesmay, in its discretion, move the Court to require Defendants to pay rental profits into a fund for the Independent Manager's maintenance of the properties, to restore the parties to the position that they would have been in but forDefendants' noncompliance with the Decree, and to ensure that sufficient fundsare available for property management going fo rward; (f) Within 10 days of the date of the Contempt Order, and every 90 days thereafter for the duration of the Decree, Defendant John Klosterman shall file with this Court a certification affirmatively stating that he has complied with all Decree requirements including but not limited to the additional requirements entered with the Contempt Order; (g) The requirement for the parties to endeavor in good faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with the Decree, as set forth in paragraph 46 of the 10/1/2020 Decree, shall continue along with all other provisions unless modified by the Contempt Order. Paragraph 46 includes, but is not limited to, resolution of any future defense of impossibility of performance. Objections to R&R due by 1/11/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 12/28/2021. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
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 Southern 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.
