Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00158/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00158-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACCO FINANCE CO., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

KYLE YANCEY, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-158 OWW/LJO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO CORRECT AND

ENFORCE STIPULATED JUDGMENT

AND TRANSFER ORDER (Doc.

29), ISSUING AMENDED

STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND

TRANSFER ORDER, AND VACATING

ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR

OCTOBER 30, 2006

On June 18, 2006 a Stipulated Judgment and Transfer Order 

was filed in this action. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulated Judgment

provided:

1. This is an interpleader action wherein

Defendants have asserted competing claims to

$242,294.62, which ACCO held for the benefit

of Defendant KYLE YANCEY ....

ACCO moves pursuant to Rule 60(a), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, to correct the Stipulated Judgment to that the amount

to which Defendants have asserted competing claims is

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 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

Rule 60(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in 1

pertinent part:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or

other parts of the record and errors therein

arising from oversight or omission may be

corrected by the court at any time of its own

initiative or on the motion of any party and

after such notice, if any, as the court

orders.

2

$208,802.03. Submitted with the motion is the Declaration of 1

John Michael of the law firm Baker, Manock & Jensen, attorneys

for ACCO Finance Co., in which Mr. Michael avers in pertinent

part:

6. In or about July 2006, it was brought to

my attention that the amount listed on the

Stipulated Judgment and Transfer Order,

$242,294.62, was not the same as the funds

held on deposit with the court in this

action. The correct amount deposited by this

firm on behalf of plaintiff was actually

$208,802.03.

7. On or about July 13, 2006, I circulated a

letter detailing the error along with an

Amended Stipulated Judgment and Transfer

Order for all the parties to sign ....

8. The only change made that is reflected in

the Amended Stipulated Judgment and Transfer

Order ... is that of the amount held by the

court in this action. The incorrect amount

listed in the original stipulation was purely

a clerical error and a mistake.

9. As of the date of this declaration

[September 25, 2006], we have not received a

signed copy of the Amended Stipulation from

defendant Euell Barnes. We have received all

other signatures, including that of Mr.

Barnes’ attorney of record, Michael Johnson.

Also submitted with the motion is the Declaration of John Chris

Gomez of the law firm Gubler & Ide, attorneys for defendants UAP

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Distribution, Inc. and Loveland Industries. Mr. Gomez avers in

pertinent part:

5. On June 15, 2006, the Stipulated Judgment

and Transfer Order was filed with this court. 

The Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed on

June 17, 2006.

6. After some delay in distribution from the

court, we inquired as to the cause of the

delay. The delay resulted in a letter from

attorney John Michael ... circulating an

Amended Stipulated Judgment. The amendment

was to correct the amount of money held by

the court which was erroneously listed as

$242,394.62 in the original stipulation. The

actual amount held in this interpleader

action was $208,802.03. The Amended

Stipulation was sent out by Mr. Michael dated

July 13, 2006. Our office on or about July

18, 2006, signed and returned the signatures

on the Amended Stipulation to [Mr. Michael].

7. After several telephone calls and letters

from our office to Mr. Michael, it was

ascertained that as of August 24, 2006, not

all signatures had been obtained on the

Amended Stipulation. As of August 14, 2006,

we received a letter from Mr. Michael’s

office indicating that Kyle Yancey, Euell

Barnes, and Euell Barnes’ attorney Michael

Johnson, had not yet returned their

signatures for the Amended Stipulation.

8. On or about August 24, 2006, I sent a

letter to all parties indicating that if the

signatures for the Amended Stipulation were

not forthcoming by August 31, 2006 we would

file a motion to enforce the Stipulated

Judgment and Transfer Order filed on June 17,

2006, and that we would be seeking attorneys’

fees from the parties for doing so ....

9. On or about September 1, 2006, we were

informed by John Michael’s assistant that

Kyle Yancey’s signature had been received at

their office via facsimile. On that same

day, I had discussions with Michael Johnson,

attorney for Euell Barnes, regarding his

client’s signature. Mr. Johnson represented

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 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

4

that his client would be signing the

stipulation and returning the signature by

September 6, 2006.

10. On September 13, 2006, our office

received a message from John Michael’s

assistant that they had received all of the

signatures on the Amended Stipulation at that

time and would be filing it as soon as

possible.

11. On September 11, 2006, I responded by

letter to Mr. Michael confirming the message

from his office and requesting that this

matter be expedited ....

12. On or about September 19, 2006, our

office telephoned John Michael’s office as to

inquire the status of the filing of the

Amended Stipulation. We were informed at

that time that all signatures had been

received except for that of Euell Barnes. 

There was no explanation as to why this

signature had not been received. In response

to that information, I telephoned Michael

Johnson, attorney for Euell Barnes to inquire

as to the hold up. I was informed that by

[sic] Mr. Johnson that Mr. Barnes had refused

to sign the Amended Stipulation. Mr. Johnson

indicated that he would speak with his client

by September 20, 2006 regarding his refusal

to sign. I requested at that time they fax

immediately Mr. Barnes’ signature as soon as

it is received.

13. As of today’s date, September 25, 2006,

no signature page has been received by our

office or by the attorneys for the plaintiff,

ACCO FINANCE CO.

No oppositions to the motion have been filed within the time

provided by Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice.

The docket in this action establishes that the amount

deposited by ACCO with the Clerk of the Court is $208,802.30. 

The docket and Mr. Michael’s declaration establish the inaccurate

amount set forth in the Stipulated Judgment and Transfer Order

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 4 of 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

5

resulted from a clerical mistake. The absence of any opposition

to the motion demonstrates that Mr. Barnes’ refusal to sign the

Amended Stipulated Judgment and Transfer Order is unsupported by

legal or factual concerns.

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

A. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and oral argument on the

motion set for October 30, 2006 is VACATED.

B. An Amended Stipulated Judgment and Transfer Order is

ADJUDGED, DETERMINED AND DECREED:

Plaintiff ACCO FINANCE CO. (“Acco”) and

Defendants KYLE YANCEY, an individual and dba

“Kyle Yancey Farms”; YANCEY FARMS, L.L.C., an

Arizona limited liability company; BRUCE

YANCEY, an individual; EUELL BARNES, an

individual; UAP DISTRIBUTION, INC., a

Delaware Corporation and also doing business

as “UAP West”; LOVELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., a

Colorado corporation and also doing business

as “UAP West”, together with the parties’

respective attorneys of record stipulate and

agree as follows:

1. This is an interpleader action 

wherein Defendants have asserted competing

claims to $208,802.03, which ACCO held for

the benefit of Defendant KYLE YANCEY. The

$208,802.03 (“Stake”) has been deposited with

this Court by ACCO. With the exception of

Defendant KAYLA YANCEY, all Defendants have

appeared in this action. The parties wish to

end this lawsuit and stipulate to judgment as

follows.

2. From the Stake, UAP 

DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Delaware corporation

and also doing business as “UAP West”;

LOVELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., a Colorado

corporation and also doing business as “UAP

West” (collectively “UAP”) shall be paid the

sum of $135,000.00. This represents UAP’s

full and complete claim to monies held in the

Stake. The money shall be paid to UAP

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 5 of 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

6

through its attorney of record. UAP shall be

discharged from this lawsuit.

3. From the Stake, ACCO shall be

paid $7,000.00. This represents its

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs expended

in this lawsuit. The money shall be paid to

ACCO through its attorney of record.

4. ACCO shall be discharged from 

this lawsuit and determined to have no

further financial obligation to any

Defendant, in relation to any monies it held

for Defendant KYLE YANCEY. Additionally, a

permanent injunction shall issue against

Yancey Farms, L.L.C. in Yancey Farms, L.L.C.

v. Yancey, Yuma County, State of Arizona

Superior Court Case No. CV2004-00868

(“Garnishment Proceeding”) pursuant to 28 USC

§ 2361. Pursuant to this permanent

injunction, Defendant YANCEY FARMS, L.L.C.,

its agents, servants, assigns, and all those

acting in concert with it, are permanently

enjoined and restrained from further

prosecuting against ACCO in the Garnishment

Proceeding.

5. After the amounts above have been 

paid to ACCO and UAP, the remaining Stake

shall be transferred to an Arizona court of

competent jurisdiction for further

proceedings. It shall be the responsibility

of KYLE YANCEY, BRUCE YANCEY and/or YANCEY

FARMS, L.L.C. to advise this Court of the

Arizona court to assume control of the

balance of the Stake and to arrange for the

transfer of the remaining Stake.

6. Outside of ACCO’s fees and 

costs noted above, each party is to bear

their own costs and attorneys’ fees related

to this suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00158-OWW -LJO Document 31 Filed 10/23/06 Page 6 of 6