Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02024/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02024-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Cotton
Plaintiff
Damario Turpin
Defendant
Zitterman Bosh & Associates
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Cotton, 

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, 

v. 

Zitterman Bosh & Associates and Damario 

Turpin, 

Defendants/Judgment Debtors.

No. CV11-2024 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Michael Cotton has filed a motion for issuance of a civil arrest warrant 

against Defendants/Judgment Debtors. Doc. 24. United States Magistrate Judge Steven 

P. Logan issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the motion 

be granted. Doc. 30. No objection has been filed, which normally would relieve the 

Court of its obligation to review the R&R, but the Court has concerns about the requested 

relief that, at this stage, prevent it from approving the R&R. 

 Judge Logan ordered Defendants to appear for a debtor’s exam in his court on 

November 6, 2012. Doc. 20. Defendants did not appear or otherwise comply with Judge 

Logan’s order. As a result, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a civil arrest warrant to have 

Defendants taken into custody. The R&R recommends that the Court grant such relief. 

Doc. 30. 

 The Court has several concerns about the requested relief. Defendants are located 

in Georgia, not Arizona. See Docs. 7, 8. Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition 

that a federal district court in Arizona can order the arrest of a person or entity in 

Case 2:11-cv-02024-DGC Document 40 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

Georgia. The R&R cites Rule 83 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, but does not 

specify a provision of that rule under which the requested relief may be ordered. 

 The Court held a telephone conference with Plaintiff’s counsel on February 27, 

2013. In response to the Court’s questions, Plaintiff’s counsel offered to file a 

memorandum of authorities. The Court agreed, and instructed counsel to file the 

memorandum with Judge Logan within 30 days of this order. The memorandum should 

address the following questions: 

 1. What statute or rule authorizes a federal judge in Arizona to order the civil 

arrest of a person in Georgia? 

 2. Civil arrest may be warranted when a party is in contempt of court, but the 

party is then brought before the court in which the contempt occurred and the judge is 

authorized to take such actions as are necessary to remedy the contempt. If the civil 

arrest warrant is being sought in this case for civil contempt of court, what authority 

permits a federal judge in Georgia to remedy contempt of a federal court in Arizona? 

And if Plaintiff is not seeking the civil arrest warrant for contempt of court, under what 

authority is it sought? 

 3. “The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The 

moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the 

contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 

305 B.R. 510, 520 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (quoting F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 

1239 (9th Cir.1999)). “The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they 

were unable to comply.” Id. Once the moving party has established a prima facie case of 

contempt, a contemnor may avoid sanctions by demonstrating a present inability to 

comply with the enforcement order. United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 393 (9th 

Cir.1996). Has a showing of civil contempt been made in this case by clear and 

convincing evidence? If it has, where will Defendants be afforded an opportunity to 

show a present inability to comply? If the answer is Georgia, what authority does a 

federal judge in Georgia have to determine whether a contempt of court occurred in 

Case 2:11-cv-02024-DGC Document 40 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

Arizona and whether the defendant had the present inability to comply with the Arizona 

order? 

 4. The motion seeks arrest of Defendant Zitterman Bosh & Associates. 

Exactly how does one arrest an entity? 

 As these questions suggest, the Court has serious doubts about its ability to order 

the arrest of Defendants in Georgia. The more appropriate course, it seems, would be for 

Plaintiff to domesticate the judgment against Defendants in Georgia, obtain an order for 

them to appear for a debtor’s exam in Georgia, and seek contempt remedies in Georgia if 

Defendants refuse to comply. But the Court will not prejudge this issue. Instead, it will 

afford Plaintiff’s counsel time to respond to these questions before Judge Logan. 

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 30) is not accepted. This matter is 

remanded to Judge Logan to consider the matters to be addressed by Plaintiff’s counsel in 

30 days 

Dated this 27th day of February, 2013. 

. 

Case 2:11-cv-02024-DGC Document 40 Filed 02/28/13 Page 3 of 3