Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01797/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01797-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Yellowdog Investments, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company and

Successor-in-Interest to Enterprise Bank

& Trust, a Missouri chartered trust

company,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vintage Ranch Investment, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company; M.

Laurin Hendrix and Evelyn Hendrix,

husband and wife,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1797-PHX-LOA

ORDER

 This contract action comes before the Court on Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments,

LLC’s (“Yellowdog”) Motion for Relief from Judgment as to Evelyn Hendrix only. (Doc.

46) Yellowdog informs the Court that Defendant Evelyn Hendrix, the current or former

spouse of Defendant M. Laurin Hendrix, “[h]as satisfied, and been released and discharged

of, her obligations under the April 16, 2012 Judgment (the “Judgment”) entered in this

action.” (Id.) Yellowdog requests Evelyn Hendrix only be released from the April 16, 2012

Judgment.

On June 25, 2013, the Court granted former Plaintiff Enterprise Bank & Trust’s

Motion for Substitution of Non-Party. (Docs. 44-45) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25(c), Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, LLC, successor-in-interest in this action

and Judgment to Enterprise Bank & Trust, a Missouri chartered trust company, was

Case 2:11-cv-01797-LOA Document 47 Filed 07/09/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

substituted in this action and Judgment as Plaintiff. (Id.)

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) provides a defendant in a civil case may

obtain relief from a final judgment when the “[t]he judgment has been satisfied, released or

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying

it prospectively is no longer equitable[.]” “The ‘satisfied, released, or discharged’ clause of

Rule 60(b)(5) is generally invoked when a party seeks entry of satisfaction of judgment

because no acknowledgment of satisfaction has been delivered due to an ongoing dispute

over the judgment amount.” Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations

omitted). While Plaintiff does not explain why a simple filing with the Clerk of Court a

partial satisfaction of judgment according to Arizona law in this diversity action would not

have satisfied the judgment to Evelyn Hendrix only, applying Rule 60(b)(5), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

to Plaintiff’s motion “comports with the plain language of the rule.” Id. at 996 (citing WolfLillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 873 (7th Cir. 1983) (Rule 69(a) requires application of state

law to satisfaction of judgment issue)).

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Yellowdog Investments, LLC’s Motion for Relief

from Judgment as to Evelyn Hendrix only, doc. 46, is GRANTED. Defendant/Judgment

Debtor Evelyn Hendrix ONLY has satisfied, and is hereby relieved from, the April 16, 2012

Judgment entered this action.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall use the above caption in all future

filings herein.

Dated this 9th day of July, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01797-LOA Document 47 Filed 07/09/13 Page 2 of 2