Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00226/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00226-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IBERIABANK, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0226-WS-B

 )

CASE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This closed matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Charging Orders 

(doc. 24), and on plaintiff’s Supplement to Motion for Charging Orders (doc. 26).

On September 16, 2015, the undersigned entered an Amended Default Judgment (doc. 

23) against defendants, Case Construction, LLC; Stephen G. Case; and Tracey S. Case. The 

Clerk of Court issued a Certificate of Judgment (doc. 24, Exh. A) on October 20, 2015, and 

judgment debtors’ time for appeal has long since expired.

In relevant part, the September 16 Judgment entered a default judgment against defendant 

Stephen G. Case in the amount of $1,518,400.26, and against defendant Tracey S. Case in the 

amount of $1,109,534.96, such amount to be joint and several with the judgment entered against 

defendant Stephen G. Case. Plaintiff represents that these defendants have not satisfied the 

Amended Default Judgment entered against them. In furtherance of its collection efforts, 

plaintiff now requests issuance of charging orders against Stephen G. Case’s ownership interests 

in CR Properties, L.L.C.; Case Properties, L.L.C.; and Pointe-A-La Hache Camp, L.L.C.; and 

against Tracey S. Case’s ownership interest in Sullivan Equities, LLC. All of the entities as to 

which charging orders are sought are Alabama limited liability companies; moreover, plaintiff 

has made a showing that a named judgment debtor is a member of each corresponding entity. 

(See doc. 26.) Plaintiff indicates that it has served copies of its Motion for Charging Orders not 

only on the judgment debtors, but also on each of the Alabama limited liability companies in 

Case 1:15-cv-00226-WS-B Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 3
-2-

question. To date, neither defendants nor the subject LLCs have filed any objection or 

opposition to the Motion, and the response time allotted by Civil L.R. 7(c) has expired.

The relevant Alabama statute provides, in part, as follows: “On application to a court of 

competent jurisdiction by any judgment creditor of a member or assignee, the court may charge 

the interest of the member or assignee with payment of the unsatisfied amount of the judgment 

with interest. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor has only the rights of an assignee 

of financial rights.” Ala. Code § 10A-5-6.05(a).1 Plaintiff has made an adequate showing that 

the statutory requirements for issuance of a charging order are satisfied here with respect to each 

of the four subject Alabama limited liability companies.

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Charging Orders (doc. 24) is granted. It is 

therefore ordered that the individual financial interests of Stephen G. Case in CR Properties, 

L.L.C.; Case Properties, L.L.C.; and Pointe-A-La Hache Camp, L.L.C., be charged with 

payment of the Amended Default Judgment rendered in this action in factor of Iberiabank on 

September 16, 2015, in the amount of $1,518,400.26, less payments made or credits received. It 

is likewise ordered that the individual financial interests of Tracey S. Case in Sullivan Equities, 

L.L.C., be charged with payment of the Amended Default Judgment rendered in this action in 

favor of Iberiabank on September 16, 2015, in the amount of $1,109,534.96, less payments made 

or credits received. It is further ordered that the LLCs must report to the plaintiff each time a 

distribution is made with respect to any transferable interest (listing the amount and time of all 

 1 This Alabama statute governs plaintiff’s request because “[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.” Rule 69(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.; see generally Regions Bank v. Stewart, 2011 

WL 1827453 (S.D. Ala. May 10, 2011) (discussing and applying Alabama charging order 

procedure by which judgment creditor may execute on judgment debtor’s interest in limited 

liability company). Also, the Court recognizes that the Alabama legislature enacted a new 

charging order statute, found at Alabama Code § 10A-5A-5.03, as part of the Alabama Limited 

Liability Company Law of 2014. At present, however, this new statute governs only “a limited 

liability company formed on or after January 1, 2015,” unless an earlier-formed LLC formally 

elects to be governed by it. Ala. Code § 10A-5A-12.01(a). The information before the Court 

shows that the four LLCs at issue were formed prior to January 1, 2015, and there is no 

indication that any of them have amended or restated their operating agreements to be bound by 

the new law; therefore, the earlier iteration of the charging order statute found at § 10A-5-6.05(a) 

governs here.

Case 1:15-cv-00226-WS-B Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 3
-3-

distributions made in connection with that distribution), and must further distribute to Iberiabank 

any amounts that become due or distributable to either Stephen G. Case or Tracey S. Case.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00226-WS-B Document 27 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 3