Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01054/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Imran Ahmad Jamali, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Stephanie Danica Low, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01054-PHX-GMS

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE: 

 On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff Imran Ahmad Jamali filed a Motion for a Judgment 

Debtor Exam and requested the Court Order Defendant Marc Adair to produce certain 

documents. (Doc. 164.) On November 13, 2014, Judge Snow referred Jamali’s Motion 

to this Court for any necessary proceedings and a ruling. (Doc. 175.) Now pending 

before the Court are Jamali’s (1) Motion to Order a Property Seizure to Satisfy a Default 

Judgment (Doc. 206), (2) Motion to Add Collection Expenses to Default Judgment 

Against Adair (Doc. 235), and (3) Motion to Order Judgment/Debtor to Turnover 

Property to the Plaintiff/Creditor (Doc. 236).1

 

 For the reasons below, this Court recommends that Jamali’s Motions relating to 

 

1

 Jamali raised similar requests during the June 18, 2015 hearing held by Judge Boyle. (Doc. 234.) Judge Boyle instructed Jamali to file written motions encompassing his requests, and the Court would rule on them. Accordingly, Judge Boyle issues this Report and Recommendation on Jamali’s pending Motions. 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

Adair’s property be granted and the Court order Jamali to file a proposed writ of 

execution for the Clerk of Court’s signature. This Court further recommends that 

Jamali’s Motion for attorneys’ fees be denied. 

I. Background 

 On December 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle ordered Adair to appear 

before him on January 13, 2015 for a judgment debtor exam. (Doc. 178.) Judge Boyle 

further ordered Adair to produce, prior to the January 13, 2015 judgment debtor exam, 

original or copies of the documents requested by Jamali. On January 13, 2015, Judge 

Boyle reset the judgment debtor exam to February 25, 2015, and required Adair to 

produce the requested documents prior to the rescheduled exam. (Doc. 189.) 

 On February 25, 2015, Jamali and Adair appeared in front of Judge Boyle for the 

judgment debtor exam. (Doc. 196.) Adair affirmed to the Court that he had received the 

Court’s Order at Doc. 189. Jamali then conducted a judgment debtor exam, but Adair 

failed to produce any of the documents required by the Court’s previous Order. 

 On March 20, 2015, Jamali filed a Motion to Continue the Judgment Debtor Exam 

based, in part, on Adair’s failure to produce any of the documents required by the Court’s 

Order. (Doc. 198.) Adair did not object or otherwise respond to Jamali’s Motion. On 

April 8, 2015, the Court granted Jamali’s request and set a continued judgment debtor 

exam for May 11, 2015. (Doc. 201.) The Court again ordered Adair to produce certain 

documents prior to the continued judgment debtor exam. 

 On April 13, 2015, Jamali filed a Motion to Order a Property Seizure to Satisfy a 

Default Judgment, in which Jamali requests the Court order the U.S. Marshals to seize 14 

items of Adair’s non-exempt property, including certain furniture, Adair’s 2005 GMC 

Yukon, and Adair’s large screen television. (Doc. 206.) 

 On May 11, 2015, Jamali appeared for the continued judgment debtor exam. 

(Doc. 222.) However, Adair failed to appear and did not file an objection or otherwise 

request to reschedule the exam. Jamali represented to the Court during the May 11, 2015 

hearing that he served Adair with the Court’s April 8, 2015 Order by certified mail at 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

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 

Adair’s address registered with the State Bar. 

 On May 14, 2015, this Court set an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding 

Adair’s failure to appear. (Doc. 226.) On May 29, 2015, Judge Boyle held the Show 

Cause Hearing. (Doc. 230.) During the hearing, Judge Boyle imposed sanctions against 

Adair on behalf of Jamali in the amount of $15.00, which represents the costs Jamali 

incurred due to Adair’s failure to appear at the May 11, 2015 judgment debtor exam. 

Adair also provided Jamali certain documents during the hearing. Judge Boyle reset the 

judgment debtor exam for June 18, 2015. 

 On June 18, 2015, both Jamali and Adair appeared for the judgment debtor exam. 

(Doc. 234.) During the hearing, Jamali informed the Court that Adair refused to satisfy 

the judgment against him, and Jamali requested the Court order Adair to turn over certain 

property to satisfy the judgment, and to pay Jamali’s attorneys’ fees related to collection 

of the judgment. Judge Boyle directed Jamali to file Motions containing these requests, 

and the Court would rule on them. 

 On June 19, 2015, Jamali filed a Motion to Add Collection Expenses to Default 

Judgment Against Adair, in which Jamali asserts that Adair refuses “to cooperate in 

settling the judgment against him in any manner.” (Doc. 235.) Jamali asserts that 

because of Adair’s conduct, he plans to retain a collection attorney to collect the 

judgment. Jamali requests that the Court award him an additional $5,794 in attorney’s 

fees, which Jamali anticipates he will owe his collection attorney for his or her work. 

Also on June 19, 2015, Jamali filed a Motion to Order Judgment/Debtor to Turnover 

Property to the Plaintiff/Creditor, in which Jamali reiterates that Adair refuses to satisfy 

the judgment against him in any manner, and Jamali “has exhausted all options in order 

to try and help Adair with the settlement of the judgment,” but Adair “has been 

uncooperative.” (Doc. 236.) Jamali seeks an Order from the Court requiring Adair to 

turn over his “exempt GMC Yukon” and his “large screen television” to Jamali or, in the 

alternative, to the U.S. Marshal for sale at auction. Adair has not responded to any of 

Jamali’s pending Motions, and the time to do so has passed. See LRCiv. 7.2(c). 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

II. Discussion 

a. Jamali’s Motion to Order a Property Seizure and Motion to Order 

Judgment/Debtor to Turnover Property 

 Enforcement of judgments is governed by Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Rule 69 provides the following: 

Rule 69. Execution 

(a) In General. 

(1) Money Judgment; Applicable Procedure. A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The 

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. 

Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-1551, et seq., set forth procedures for the enforcement of 

judgments under Arizona law, including the issuance of writs of execution. Pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 12-1551, “[t]he party in whose favor a judgment is given, at any time within 

five years after entry of the judgment and within five years after any renewal of the 

judgment either by affidavit or by an action brought on it, may have a writ of execution 

or other process issued for its enforcement.” Such a party may seek a general or specific 

writ of execution. See A.R.S. § 12-1552. Further, pursuant to § 12-1558, “[a]ll property, 

real and personal, not exempt by law, and all property and rights of property seized and 

held under attachment or garnishment in an action, are liable to execution.” 

 On September 29, 2014, Jamali sought a Writ of Execution regarding the default 

judgment against Adair, which the Clerk issued. (Doc. 157.) However, Jamali’s 

Application, filed prior to any of the judgment debtor exams of Adair, does not seek the 

seizure and/or sale of specific property belonging to Adair. Jamali’s pending Motions list 

specific property he requests the U.S. Marshal seize. In light of the judgment entered 

against Adair and the relevant legal authority discussed above, this Court recommends 

that Jamali’s Motions for Orders seizing Adair’s property be construed as applications for 

writs of execution, that the Motions be granted, and that the Court order Jamali to file a 

proposed writ of execution for the Clerk of Court’s signature. 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

b. Jamali’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

Jamali also requests the Court add to the default judgment it entered against Adair 

an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,794. (Doc. 235.) Jamali asserts the 

requested award represents fees for a collection attorney he anticipates having to retain 

due to Adair’s failure to satisfy the default judgment. 

To the extent Jamali seeks an award of fees as the prevailing party in the 

underlying action against Adair, this Court recommends that Jamali’s Motion for fees be 

denied. Rule 54(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs 

requests for attorneys’ fees based on a judgment, requires that Motions for fees be filed 

within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Jamali filed his Motion for fees on June 19, 

2015—over one year after the entry of default judgment against Adair and well after the 

deadline in Rule 54(d)(2)(B). 

 Further, Jamali fails to identify any basis in federal or state law for an award of 

attorneys’ fees related to collection of his debt against Adair. To the extent Jamali seeks 

an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, this 

Court recommends Jamali’s request be denied. District courts may sanction a party for 

“willful disobedience” or when a party has acted in “bad faith” during litigation. See 

Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-92, 994 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway Express, 

Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980)); see also Zambrano v. City of Tustin, 885 F.2d 

1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1989) (“To insure that restraint is properly exercised, we have 

routinely insisted upon a finding of bad faith before sanctions may be imposed under the 

court’s inherent power.”). 

 This Court does not find at this time that Adair’s failure to pay the judgment is 

sufficient to warrant an award of fees related to Jamali’s collection of the judgment. 

Additionally, it appears that the amount of fees Jamali seeks to recover is speculative. If 

Jamali obtains a writ of execution regarding Adair’s property, and the proceeds from the 

sale of any such property, the full (or any) assistance of a collection attorney may not be 

necessary. For these reasons, the Court recommends that Jamali’s Motion to Add 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

Collection Expenses to Default Judgment Against Adair (Doc. 235) be denied. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Jamali’s Motion to Order a Property Seizure to 

Satisfy a Default Judgment (Doc. 206) and Motion to Order Judgment/Debtor to 

Turnover Property (Doc. 236) be granted, and the Court order Jamali to file a proposed 

writ of execution for the Clerk of Court’s signature. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Jamali’s Motion to Add Collection to 

Default Judgment (Doc. 235) be denied. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The 

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days 

within which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Report and 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

Recommendation to Marc Adair at his address in the State Bar Directory:

Adair Law Group LLC 

2942 N 24th St Ste 114 

Phoenix, AZ 85016-7849 

 Dated this 8th day of September, 2015. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01054-GMS Document 237 Filed 09/09/15 Page 7 of 7