Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00718/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00718-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

After securing a judgment against Defendant Tommy Jones, Plaintiff Eugene Forte sought an 

order from this Court requiring Defendant to appear for a debtor’s examination under oath pursuant to 

Rule 69. An order to appear for examination was issued on March 24, 2015, and the hearing was set 

for April 24, 2015. Defendant and Counsel appeared at the Rule 69 hearing on April 24, 2015. 

Defendant was sworn and testified. During the course of the Examination, the Court was asked to 

direct Defendant to answer certain questions. The Court did so, and Defendant answered. The 

Examination concluded, and the parties adjourned.

On May 27 and May 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion and Amended Motion, respectively, for 

and Order to Show Cause for Civil and Criminal Contempt by Defendant Tommy Jones and Defense 

Counsel. (Doc. 216-219.) In short, Plaintiff contends that Defendant committed perjury and acted in 

contempt of Court during the Examination when Defendant testified that he did not have conversations 

with City of Los Banos representatives, Carrigan or Vaughn, about payment of the judgment. Plaintiff 

EUGENE E. FORTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TOMMY JONES,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 216, 218)

Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 220 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 5
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

asks that Defendant and Counsel be held in civil and criminal contempt, jailed for no less than 90 days, 

fined $5,000.00, and have his costs paid in the amount of $3,242.68, among other requests.

ANALYSIS

A. Rule 69

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 governs the enforcement of judgment proceedings in the 

federal courts. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir.1996). In significant part, Rule 69 

provides, “[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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1). The purpose of a debtor examination is 

to identify property in the possession or control of the judgment debtor or a third person (such as a 

nondebtor spouse), to learn about property the debtor may obtain in the future, and to require the 

debtor or third person to turn over property to the levying officer. See Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, 

Inc., 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546-547, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 437 (1995); Lee v. Swansboro Country 

Property Owners Ass'n, 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 581, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 924, 927 (2008). The judgment 

debtor must appear in court “to furnish information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.” 

Code Civ.P. § 708.110(a) (emphasis added); Hooser v. Super.Ct. (Ray), 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1002, 

101 Cal.Rptr2d 341, 345 (2000).

A judgment debtor may be held in contempt of court for failing to appear at the debtor 

examination in defiance of a court order to do so. C.C.P. § 708.170(a)(1)(A); see also Baker v. Limber, 

647 F.2d 912, 919 (9th Cir.1981) (“A judgment-debtor's refusal to answer questions in a Rule 69 

proceeding normally would justify a court's exercise of its contempt power.”).

As stated above, following entry of judgment, Plaintiff applied for and received a court order 

compelling discovery from Defendant. A Rule 69 Examination was held on April 24, 2015, for the 

purpose of identifying assets from which the judgment might be satisfied. Defendant answered a 

variety questions regarding his assets. One line of questioning, now at issue in this motion, is whether 

Defendant Jones had certain conversations with City of Los Banos representatives as to whether the 

City would pay, on Jones’ behalf, the remaining amount of the judgment to Plaintiff.

Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 220 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Here, Plaintiff does not seek an Order to Show Cause because Defendant Jones failed to appear 

at the Rule 69 hearing. Defendant Jones appeared. Plaintiff does not seek an order to Show Cause 

because Defendant Jones failed to answer questions at the Rule 69 hearing. Defendant Jones answered 

all questions. Here, Plaintiff seeks an Order to Show Cause to prove that Defendant’s answers to a 

limited line of questioning were not truthful.

The Court exercises its discretion and does not issue an Order to Show Cause in this situation. 

The issue upon which Plaintiff seeks contempt is tangential to the fundamental purpose of the Rule 69 

enforcement proceeding. The Rule 69 purpose is to uncover and determine assets from which the 

judgment could be satisfied. Here, the purported perjured answers are not related to the discovery of 

assets. Rather, the answers are related to Defendant’s communications with City officials on whether 

the Mr. Jones asked City officials to pay the judgment. As Defendant is not employed by the City and 

has no control over the City or its finances, inquiry into this subject area is only tangentially related to 

the purpose of the Rule 69 enforcement proceeding. 

The Court acknowledges that a charge of perjury is not to be disregarded lightly. And the 

Court does not do so. See Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 F.3d 71, 77 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(explaining that “when [perjury] is discovered, the penalty needs to be severe enough to deter such 

conduct” and protect the judicial process against abuse, because “[t]he proper administration of justice 

depends on people testifying truthfully under oath”). However, here, the testimony is not relevant to 

the purpose of the Rule 69 proceeding and there is no prejudice to Plaintiff from the information 

purportedly mislead. At the time of the Examination, the Court permitted Plaintiff to question 

Defendant about whether the City would serve as a source of potential income. The Court’s 

permission for the inquiry was based upon California’s broad policy considerations for enforcing 

judgment. See e.g., Troy v. Superior Court, 186 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1014, 231 Cal.Rptr. 108 (1986) 

(Judgment debtor examinations serve an important function in our judicial system.). However, during 

the Examination, the Court cautioned that questions regarding the nature of communications between 

Defendant and City officials were not directly related to assets. Doc. 216-2 at 42:15-19 (“I’m not 

quite sure [Plaintiff’s question] is getting to assets, and that’s what the purpose of this is”). Whether 

the City is a source of assets is an appropriate question; specific communications regarding how or 

Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 220 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 5
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

why that decision was made is a different matter and irrelevant for the purposes of ascertaining the 

existence and whereabouts of assets available to satisfy a judgment. The Court declines now to invoke 

its contempt authority under these facts. Of additional significance, the Court also declines to multiply 

the proceedings in this case. On balance, given the tangential nature and the relevance of the 

information, the lack of any type of prejudice, and the crushing caseload in the Eastern District, the 

Court declines to issue the Order to Show cause.

B. 18 U.S.C. §401 and Fed.R.Crim.P.42 are Inapplicable

Plaintiff relies upon 18 U.S.C. §401 which permits a court to hold a person criminally in 

contempt for certain conduct. Fines or imprisonment may be imposed for criminal contempt under 18 

U.S.C. § 401 and F.R.Crim.P. 42 (criminal contempt). Section 104 states: 

“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at 

its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the 

administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or 

command.”

In re Osborne, 344 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1965) (This section providing for summary contempt judgment 

is criminal and must be strictly construed). Here, none of the conditions of the statute occurred. 

Further, criminal contempt is inappropriate in these circumstances.

C. 28 U.S.C. §1826

Plaintiff also relies upon 28 U.S. C. §1826 as a source of sanction authority. Section 1826 

provides that a court may, upon a witness’ refusal to testify, may order the witness’ confinement. This 

statute is inapplicable because Defendant Jones in fact testified and answered the questions posed by 

Plaintiff.

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 220 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 5
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause for Civil and Criminal Contempt by 

Defendant Tommy Jones and Defense Counsel is DENIED.

2. The hearing set for June 26, 2015 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00718-AWI-BAM Document 220 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 5