Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00237/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00237-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1 05cv237 BTM (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL R. TORRES; JARROD JENE

HARSHAW and FELIX TORRES, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY; SAN DIEGO

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;

WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, SHERIFF; SAN

DIEGO PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE;

THE BOULEVARD BAR & GRILL, INC.

AND THE OWNERS INDIVIDUALLY;

DEPUTY JONATHON HINTZ, sued in

officical capacity and individually; DEPUTY

GENERA, sued in officical capacity and

individually; COMMANDER CAPTAIN

QUACO, sued in officical capacity and

individually; PUBLIC DEFENDER CINDY

GRIMN, sued in officical capacity and

individually; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv237 BTM (NLS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

CONTEMPT AND FOR AN ORDER

THAT ALL DEBTOR EXAM

INTERROGATORIES BE FULLY

RESPONDED TO

[Doc. No. 167]

Plaintiffs Michael Torres and Jarrod Harshaw filed a motion requesting that this Court set an

Order to Show Cause (OSC) hearing regarding contempt against Henry Simpson and Jason Simmons,

individually, for their failure to fully answer debtor exam interrogatories and for their providing

allegedly perjured answers to some debtor exam interrogatories. Non-defendants The Boulevard Bar

and Grill LLC (Boulevard LLC), Simpson and Simmons oppose because they are not judgment debtors. 

Plaintiffs only have a default judgment against a dissolved entity, The Boulevard Bar & Grill, Inc.

(Boulevard Inc.). The Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs’ motion.

Case 3:05-cv-00237-BTM-NLS Document 181 Filed 07/26/07 Page 1 of 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

2 05cv237 BTM (NLS)

Procedural History.

In an order dated July 24, 2007 denying with prejudice plaintiffs’ companion motion to change

the name of the defaulted defendant (July 24 Order), Judge Moskowitz detailed the procedural history

relevant to this motion. [Doc. No. 179.] This Court incorporates here by reference the procedural

background layed out in the July 24 Order, and adds the following facts.

On February 14, 2007, plaintiffs applied to have the third-party Boulevard LLC, by and through

its owners Simpson and Simmons, to appear for a debtor exam, or in the alternative, to change the name

of the defaulted defendant. Judge Moskowitz denied the application to change the name of the defaulted

defendant and referred the remaining part of the application to Judge Stormes for decision. [Doc. No.

157.] Judge Stormes ordered only Boulevard LLC–through Simpson and Simmons–to appear on March

27, 2007. [Doc. No. 158.] The Court did not hold the judgment debtor exam on March 27 due to

Simmons being ill, and rescheduled it for April 17. [Doc. No. 161.] On April 17, no parties or counsel

appeared for the exam. [Doc. No. 162.] The Court ordered the parties to contact the Court and

reschedule the exam, if needed. [Doc. No. 162.] The parties never contacted the Court to reschedule.

Meanwhile, on April 12, Felix Torres–plaintiff Michael Torres’ father and a dismissed

plaintiff–asked the individuals Simpson and Simmons to answer interrogatories in lieu of appearing at

the debtor exam. Pls.’ Notice of Lodgment (NOL) Exs. 1-2. Instead, Simmons–on behalf of Boulevard

LLC–responded to the debtor exam questions. NOL Ex. 3.

Plaintiffs, dissatisfied with the responses, filed a motion on May 22 asking the Court to set an

OSC against Simpson and Simmons individually for failure to to fully respond to the interrogatories and

for an order requiring them to fully respond. [Doc. No. 167.] They filed a companion motion with Judge

Moskowitz asking that he change the name of the defaulted defendant to include Boulevard LLC,

Simpson and Simmons individually, Boulevard Bar & Grill and San Marcos Boulevard, LLC. [Doc. No.

164.] The Court denied the motion with prejudice because plaintiffs did not show liability based on alter

ego. The Court denied it on a secondary basis because even if plaintiffs had shown alter ego, the Court

could not amend a judgment that was entered strictly by default. Further, plaintiffs never sought to

amend the complaint, even though they had ample opportunity to do so.

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-00237-BTM-NLS Document 181 Filed 07/26/07 Page 2 of 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

3 05cv237 BTM (NLS)

Analysis.

On February 23, 2007, this Court ordered only Boulevard LLC to appear for a judgment debtor 

examination. In lieu of appearing, plaintiffs and non-parties, without informing the Court, conducted

their own judgment debtor exam through interrogatories. Plaintiffs, however, directed the

interrogatories toward the individuals Simpson and Simmons. Non-party Boulevard LLC complied with

the Court’s February 23 Order and responded only on behalf of itself, and not on behalf of the

individuals. 

This Court never had jurisdiction over Simpson and Simmons individually and had never

ordered them to appear on their own behalf for a judgment debtor exam. Also, Judge Moskowitz denied

with prejudice plaintiffs’ request to add Simpson and Simmons as judgment debtors. Therefore, the

Court will not order them to appear for an OSC regarding contempt and will not order them to fully

respond to any judgment debtor interrogatories.

To the extent plaintiffs seek to have Boulevard LLC–through Simpson and Simmons–appear for

an OSC and be ordered to further supplement its responses to the judgment debtor interrogatories, the

Court denies that request because Judge Moskowitz has made a final determination that the judgment

may not be amended to add Boulevard LLC as a debtor.

For these reasons, the Court DENIES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs’ motion to set an OSC

against Simpson and Simmons individually regarding contempt for their failure to fully respond to

debtor exam interrogatories and for allegedly providing partial or perjured responses to those

interrogatories, and for an order that they fully respond to the debtor exam interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2007

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00237-BTM-NLS Document 181 Filed 07/26/07 Page 3 of 3