UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

NITHYANANDA DHANAPEETAM 

OF COLUMBUS, 

 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-mc-51228 

 v. DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN 

AARTHI S. RAO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) Plaintiff Nithyananda 

Dhanapeetam of Columbus’s Motion for Appearance and Examination of Judgment of 

Defendant Aarthi Rao (docket no. 2) and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, an Order of 

Contempt, and to Compel Compliance Against Manickam Narayanan (docket no. 5). No 

response has been filed. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket no. 3.) Because this 

is a post-judgment matter, the undersigned must proceed by Report and Recommendation. The 

Court has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with a hearing pursuant to Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), and issues this Report and Recommendation. 

I. RECOMMENDATION 

For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appearance and 

Examination of Judgment of Defendant Aarthi Rao (docket no. 2) be GRANTED and that 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 66
Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, an Order of Contempt, and to Compel Compliance Against 

Manickam Narayanan (docket no. 5) be GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

(1) Mr. Narayanan should be ordered to appear before the Honorable Paul D. Borman on 

a date certain to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failing to 

comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena; 

(2) Unless Mr. Narayanan can satisfactorily show cause as to why he has not fully 

complied with Plaintiff’s subpoena, he should be held in civil contempt of court by 

the District Judge; and 

(3) Mr. Narayanan should be ordered to purge himself of the contempt by fully 

complying with the subpoena and by paying the reasonable fees and costs incurred by 

Plaintiff as a result of his non-compliance. 

II. REPORT

A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appearance and Examination 

On August 12, 2014, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Case No. 2:13-CV-00526, against 

Defendant in the amount of $463,211.25, plus $10,568.30 in attorneys fees, $603.20 in costs, and 

post-judgment interest in the amount of three percent per annum. (Docket no. 2 at 2-3, 11-15.) 

The default judgment was certified and registered in this District on September 12, 2014. 

(Docket no. 1.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Appearance and Examination of Judgment 

of Defendant on October 22, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and Michigan 

Compiled Laws § 600.6110, seeking to determine Defendant’s financial status and the scope of 

her collectible assets. (Docket no. 2.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 governs the execution of judgments. The Rule states: 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 67
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 . . . . 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). The Rule also allows a party attempting to enforce a judgment to obtain 

discovery from any person in aid of executing that judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). 

 In Michigan, court rules and statutes govern supplementary proceedings to enforce 

judgments. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6101 et seq., Mich. Ct. R. 2.621(A)(2), Miko 

Enterprises, Inc. v. Allegan Nursing Home, LLC, No. 1:09-CV-988, 2010 WL 148659, at *4 

(W.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2010) (Quist, J.). Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.6104 provides: 

After judgment for money has been rendered in an action in any court of this 

state, the judge may, on motion in that action or in a subsequent proceeding: 

(1) Compel a discovery of any property or things in action belonging to a 

judgment debtor, and of any property, money, or things in action due to 

him, or held in trust for him; 

(2) Prevent the transfer of any property, money, or things in action, or the 

payment or delivery thereof to the judgment debtor; 

(3) Order the satisfaction of the judgment out of property, money, or other 

things in action, liquidated or unliquidated, not exempt from execution; 

(4) Appoint a receiver of any property the judgment debtor has or may 

thereafter acquire; and 

(5) Make any order as within his discretion seems appropriate in regard to 

carrying out the full intent and purpose of these provisions to subject any 

nonexempt assets of any judgment debtor to the satisfaction of any 

judgment against the judgment debtor. 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6104. Michigan law also provides that “[u]pon an affidavit, showing 

to the satisfaction of the judge that any person has money or property of the judgment debtor, or 

is indebted to him,” the judge has the power to issue a subpoena requiring a judgment debtor or a 

third person to submit to an examination under oath and produce any information or documents 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 68
in “his or its possession or control which have or may contain information concerning the 

property or income of the debtor.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6110(1). And a court may restrain 

the judgment debtor from transferring, disposing of, or interfering with any property that may be 

subject to the judgment. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6116(1). 

 In an affidavit attached to Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel attests that after repeated 

demands, Defendant has refused to apply any funds toward the satisfaction of the judgment she 

owes to Plaintiff. (Docket no. 2 at 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel also affirms his belief that Defendant 

has property that she refuses to apply toward the satisfaction of the judgment; he also claims that 

he has verified Defendant’s joint ownership of real property with her husband in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan. (Id.) Plaintiff has met the requirements of Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.6110(1) 

and is entitled to conduct a creditor's examination in an effort to collect on the judgment. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted, and Defendant should be ordered to appear 

for a creditor’s examination and bring to the examination all of the documents listed in Exhibit 1 

to Plaintiff’s Motion. 

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, an Order of Contempt, and to 

Compel Compliance Against Manickam Narayanan, filed on December 19, 2014, for his failure 

to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. (Docket no. 5.) “Except in cases where a United States 

Magistrate Judge exercises consent jurisdiction in a civil case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) or 

misdemeanor jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3401, the Magistrate Judge may not enter an order 

of civil contempt. Rather, the Magistrate Judge must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B).” 

U.S. v. Hendrickson, No. 06-11753, 2010 WL 2318770, at *1 (Apr. 16, 2010). This section 

provides as follows: 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 69
[T]he magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district judge and may 

serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose behavior is brought into 

question under this paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a 

district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that person should not be 

adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall 

thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is 

such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the 

same extent as for a contempt committed before a district judge. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), failure to obey a subpoena without 

adequate excuse is conduct punishable by contempt; accordingly, the undersigned certifies the 

following facts:1

1. In an effort to conduct discovery in aid of executing the default judgment against 

Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), supra, Plaintiff 

served Defendant’s husband, Manickam Narayanan with a subpoena duces tecum. 

(Docket no. 5-2.) 

2. The subpoena commanded Mr. Narayanan to appear and testify at, and bring certain 

documents to, a deposition scheduled for December 9, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. at the law 

offices of Plaintiff’s counsel in Gross Pointe Farms, Michigan. (Id.) 

 

3. The subpoena was issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Ohio; however, Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over this Motion 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g) because this is the District where 

compliance was required. (Docket no. 5 at 2.) 

4. Plaintiff further asserts that the place of compliance was both within the state and 

within 100 miles of where Mr. Narayanan “resides, is employed, or regularly 

conducts business” in accordance with Rule 45(c)(1). (Id. at 3.) 

5. The subpoena was sent to Mr. Narayanan’s last known mailing address, P.O. Box 

1408, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1408, on or around October 30, 2014 via certified mail. 

It was then forwarded to another post office box in Ann Arbor, P.O. Box 131275, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48113, and was picked up on November 12, 2014. (See docket no. 5-

2.) Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently verified with the Ann Arbor Post Office that Mr. 

Narayanan’s new address is P.O. Box 131275, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-1275. (Id. at 3-

4; see docket nos. 5-3, and 5-4.) 

 

1

 Because the facts of this matter are undisputed, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to hold a fact-finding hearing 

before certifying the facts in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 70
6. Mr. Narayanan failed to respond to or comply with the subpoena. (Id. at 4; see

docket no. 5-5.) 

7. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Narayanan’s non-compliance resulted in approximately 

$5,000.00 in attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff. (Id.) 

8. As relief, Defendant requests that the Court issue an order for contempt and monetary 

sanctions against Mr. Narayanan as well as an order requiring Mr. Narayanan to 

appear for a deposition and produce the documents listed in Exhibit 1 to the 

subpoena. (Id. at 1, 5.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 governs the issuance of subpoenas for the discovery 

of information from third parties. Rule 45(g) provides that “[t]he court for the district where 

compliance [with a subpoena] is required . . . may hold in contempt a person who, having been 

served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(g). It is within the court’s sound discretion whether to hold an individual in contempt, 

but such a sanction “should not be used lightly.” Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local 

Union #58, IBEW v. Gary’s Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2003). Moreover, when 

contempt is sought by a party, the party seeking contempt must demonstrate by clear and 

convincing evidence that the individual “violated a definite and specific order of the court 

requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of 

the court’s order.” M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 289 F. App’x 927, 935 (6th Cir. 

2008) (internal quotations omitted). Any ambiguity in the Court’s order is resolved “in favor of 

the party charged with contempt.” Id. The burden then shifts to the individual charged with 

contempt to make a categorical and detailed showing that compliance is impossible. U.S. v. 

Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983); U.S. v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1043 (6th Cir. 2007). 

 The certified facts outlined above support a finding of civil contempt. The record 

indicates that Plaintiff’s subpoena to Mr. Narayanan was properly served in this matter, and 

Plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that Mr. Narayanan violated the subpoena by failing to appear 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 71
for the deposition. The subpoena was not ambiguous. Furthermore, Mr. Narayanan has not filed 

an objection, moved to quash the subpoena, or responded to Plaintiff in any manner. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion should be granted in part, and Mr. Narayanan should be ordered 

to appear before the Honorable Paul D. Borman on a date certain to show cause why he should 

not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena. Unless Mr. 

Narayanan can satisfactorily show cause as to why he has not fully complied with Plaintiff’s 

subpoena, he should be held in civil contempt of court by the District Judge, and he should be 

ordered to purge himself of the contempt by fully complying with the subpoena and by paying 

the reasonable fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff as a result of his non-compliance. 

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

 The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as 

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d). 

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th 

Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which 

raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a 

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n Of Teachers Local 231, 829 

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections 

is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

 Any objections must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc. Any objection 

must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not 

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 72
later than fourteen days after service of an objection, the opposing party must file a concise 

response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. The response must 

specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order and labeled as 

“Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc. 

Dated: September 8, 2015 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Report and Recommendation was served upon Aarthi 

Rao at P.O. Box 1408, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106; Manickam Narayanan at P.O. Box 131275, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-1275; and counsel of record on this date. 

Dated: September 8, 2015 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager

2:14-mc-51228-PDB-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 09/08/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 73