IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SYNERGY ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC,§

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1699-BN

§

CLEARPRISM, LLC, §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff (and Judgment Creditor) Synergy Advisory Services, LLC has filed a 

Motion for Post-Judgment Receivership. See Dkt. No. 36. Synergy “asks the Court to 

sign a turnover order and to appoint receiver, Ms. Dana E. Lipp, a member of the bar 

of this court and certified public accountant, to collect a final judgment entered in 

this Honorable Court on October 13, 2023.” Id. at 1.

Defendant (and Judgment Debtor) ClearPrism, LLC filed a Response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Judgment Receivership. see Dkt. No. 39. Synergy did not 

file a reply, and its deadline to do so has passed. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 7.1.

For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Plaintiff Synergy Advisory 

Services, LLC’s Motion for Post-Judgment Receivership [Dkt. No. 36].

Background

As Synergy summarizes in its motion, 

[o]n October 13, 2023, pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 58(a) the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas entered a judgment in this case styled Synergy Advisory Services, 

LLC, vs. Clear Prism, LLC, filed as docket number 3:22-cv-I 699-BH.

The Court awarded Judgment Creditor a judgment in the amount 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID 226
- 2 -

of $141,250.00 for actual damages; $27,742.50 for attorney’s fees ; and 

$409.86 for costs all against Defendant and Judgment Debtor 

ClearPrism, LLC (“Judgment Debtor”). 

Judgment Debtor did not appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment Debtor has not satisfied the 

Judgment. Judgment Debtor has not paid any portion of the Judgment.

The judgment of the Court is final and is a valid, subsisting 

judgment. A true and correct copy of the Court’s judgment is attached to 

this motion as Exhibit 1. The Court may also take judicial notice of its 

file, including the existence of its judgment and the lack of any filings 

purporting to note any credits toward the judgment balance or a release 

or satisfaction of the judgment.

Dkt. No. 36 at 1-2.

Synergy asks “that the Court appoint Receiver Ms. Dana E. Lipp, CPA to 

collect the judgment in this case, award attorney’s fees, and provide for the payment 

of fees and costs to the Receiver, and order Judgment Debtor ClearPrism, LLC to turn 

over all nonexempt property and financial records in its possession or control, with 

all supporting documents as set forth in the proposed order which accompanies this 

motion.” Dkt. No. 36 at 8.

Synergy asserts that appointment of a receiver is appropriate under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and the Texas Turnover Statute (Texas Civil Practice 

& Remedies Code § 31.002) as well as Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 64.001. 

See Dkt. No. 36 at 2-4.

In support, Synergy explains that

[a] valid final judgment has been entered by this Court that remains 

unpaid. This Court therefore has competent jurisdiction to enforce 

collection.

Judgment Debtor owns property, including present or future 

rights to property that is not exempt from attachment, execution, or 

seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities. ClearPrism, LLC operates a 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID 227
- 3 -

public commercial website, see https://clearprism.com/, which itself is a 

commercial, non-exempt asset, and this Court can take judicial notice of 

it. In Restrepo v. All. Riggers & Constructors, Ltd., 538 S.W.3d 755, 758 

(Tex. App. – El Paso 2017, no pet.) the Court of Appeals upheld a 

turnover order and specifically found that a domain 

nameallianceriggersandconstructors.com – was not exempt personal 

property. ClearPrism LLC reports on this website that it has offices in 

6 locations in the United States (including Dallas, Texas) and an office 

in Prune, India. As of June 2022, ClearPrism, LLC had a bank account 

at American National Bank of Texas. Further, Judgment Creditor 

believes that unless a receiver is appointed, the Judgment Debtor will 

fraudulently transfer, or waste, or attempt to damage assets or place 

them beyond the Court’s or Judgment Creditor’s reach.

A Judgment Creditor is not required to exhaust all other means 

of collecting a judgment before asking a court to appoint a receiver. See 

In re Estate of Trevino, 195 S.W.3d 223, 231 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 

2006, no pet.) (“A receiver appointed pursuant to § 64.001(a) and (b) .... 

is not required to show that no other adequate remedy exists.”).

Dkt. No. 36 at 5.

ClearPrism responds that Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 64.001(b) 

requires that “the property or fund must be in danger of being lost, removed, or 

materially injured” and that, “beyond the conclusory assertion that ‘unless a receiver 

is appointed, the Judgment Debtor will fraudulently transfer, or waste, or attempt to 

damage assets or place them beyond the Court’s or Judgment Creditor’s reach,’ 

[Synergy] does not identify any specific item or property that is in danger of being 

transferred or wasted or indicate why [Synergy] believes that [ClearPrism] will 

attempt to transfer, waste, or damage assets.” Dkt. No. 39 at 2. And, so, ClearPrism 

asserts that “there is no evidence to support the appointment of a receiver.” Id.

ClearPrism also asserts that, “[b]ecause receivership is a drastic remedy, a 

receiver should be appointed only if the evidence shows that some serious injury to 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID 228
- 4 -

the applicant will result or is threatened” and that, “[a]s there is no such evidence in 

this case, appointment of a receiver is inappropriate.” Id.

Legal Standards

A federal court may enforce a money judgment “in accordance with the practice 

and procedure of the state in which the district court is held.” FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a). 

The Texas Turnover Statute “is ‘the procedural device [in this state] by which 

judgment creditors may reach assets of a debtor that are otherwise difficult to attach 

or levy on by ordinary legal process.’” Af-Cap, Inc. v. Republic of Congo, 462 F.3d 417, 

426 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 224 

(Tex. 1991)).

Under the Texas Turnover Statute, a judgment creditor is “entitled to aid from 

a court of appropriate jurisdiction ... to obtain satisfaction on the judgment if the 

judgment debtor owns property ... that (1) cannot readily be attached or levied on by 

ordinary legal process; and (2) is not exempt from attachment, execution, or seizure 

for the satisfaction of liabilities.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 31.002(a).

“To obtain relief under the turnover statute, a judgment creditor must prove: 

(1) the judgment debtor owns property, including present or future rights to property; 

(2) the property is not exempt from attachment, execution, or seizure; and (3) the 

property cannot readily be attached or levied on or by ordinary legal process.” Maiden 

Biosciences, Inc. v. MPM Med. Inc., No. 3:18-cv-1354-D, 2021 WL 1056458, at *3 (N.D. 

Tex. Mar. 18, 2021) (cleaned up).

The Texas Turnover Statute permits a court to “order the judgment debtor to 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID 229
- 5 -

turn over nonexempt property that is in the debtor’s possession or is subject to the 

debtor’s control, together with all documents or records related to the property, to a 

designated sheriff or constable for execution.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

31.002(b)(1).

The statute also provides that the court may “appoint a receiver with the 

authority to take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds 

to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 31.002(b)(3).

And Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 64.001(a) provides that “[a] court 

of competent jurisdiction may appoint a receiver: ... (2) in an action by a creditor to 

subject any property or fund to his claim.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 64.001(a)(2).

But Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 64.001(b) provides that the party 

seeking appointment of a receiver under Section 64.001(a)(2) “must have a probable 

interest in or right to the property or fund, and the property or fund must be in danger 

of being lost, removed, or materially injured.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 

64.001(b).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has explained that “a 

receivership is a remedy for taking possession of a judgment debtor’s property.” 

Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron, 703 F.3d 296, 306 (5th Cir. 2012). That is, “receivership may 

be an appropriate remedy for a judgment creditor who seeks to set aside allegedly 

fraudulent conveyances by the judgment debtor, or who has had execution issued and 

returned unsatisfied, or who proceeds through supplementary proceedings pursuant 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID 230
- 6 -

to Rule 69, or who seeks to subject equitable assets to the payment of his judgment, 

or who otherwise is attempting to have the debtor’s property preserved from 

dissipation until his claim can be satisfied.” Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co., 105 

F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up).

But the Fifth Circuit has explained that “[r]eceivership is an extraordinary 

remedy that should be employed with the utmost caution and is justified only where 

there is a clear necessity to protect a party’s interest in property, legal and less drastic 

equitable remedies are inadequate, and the benefits of receivership outweigh the 

burdens on the affected parties.” Netsphere, 703 F.3d at 305 (cleaned up); accord

Estate of Price, 528 S.W.3d 591, 593-94 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (“Even 

though [a] receiver appointed pursuant to section 64.001(a) and (b) of the Texas Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code is not required to show that no other adequate remedy 

exists, [t]he appointment of a receiver is a harsh, drastic, and extraordinary remedy, 

which must be used cautiously.” (cleaned up)); see also Cap. Funding, LLC v. TLTX 

Holdings, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-5-Z, 2020 WL 264106, at *4-*5 & n.1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 

2020).

“Factors that courts have considered as indicating the need for a receivership 

include the following: a valid claim by the party seeking the appointment; the 

probability that fraudulent conduct has occurred or will occur to frustrate that claim; 

imminent danger that property will be concealed, lost, or diminished in value; 

inadequacy of legal remedies; lack of a less drastic equitable remedy; and likelihood 

that appointing the receiver will do more good than harm.” Santibanez, 105 F.3d at 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID 231
- 7 -

241-42 (cleaned up).

Analysis

In its Motion for Post-Judgment Receivership, Synergy seeks to establish that 

Defendant ClearPrism, LLC has not satisfied the judgment and owns non-exempt 

assets or property or rights to property that can be used to satisfy the judgment. See

Dkt. No. 36.

But Synergy has not offered enough to appoint a receiver, as it requests.

Vederra offers no evidence that a receivership is necessary to prevent 

ClearPrism from dissipating property before it satisfies Synergy’s judgment against 

it. 

Synergy offers no evidence or facts to support a finding that any non-exempt 

property or funds are in danger of being lost, removed, materially injured, concealed, 

or diminished in value without appointment of a receiver to seize them.

And Synergy offers no evidence or facts to support a finding that this 

extraordinary remedy is clearly necessary to protect Synergy’s interest in non-exempt 

assets or property that can be used to satisfy the judgment.

As ClearPrism notes, Synergy’s “belie[f] that unless a receiver is appointed, 

[ClearPrism] will fraudulently transfer, or waste, or attempt to damage assets or 

place them beyond the Court’s or [Synergy’s] reach” does not, without more, support 

appointing a receiver. See Vederra Holdings LLC v. Glob. Equity Partners, LLC, No. 

3:23-mc-38-K, 2023 WL 5945867, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2023) (“Vederra states 

that it ‘believe[s]’ that Defendants ‘own property,’ that Defendants ‘will fraudulently 

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID 232
- 8 -

transfer, or waste, or attempt to damage assets or place them beyond the Court’s or 

[Defendants’] reach,’ and that GEP ‘is insolvent or soon will be unless a receiver is 

appointed,’ Doc. No. 2 at 5, but Vederra does not explain the basis for its beliefs or 

support its speculation with corroborating evidence. Vederra’s conclusory assertions 

are an insufficient basis to grant the relief it seeks.”).

And, “because [Synergy] does not prevail on [its amended motion], [it] is not 

entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees under Chapter 31.002(e).” Id. at *2.

Recommendation

The Court denies Plaintiff Synergy Advisory Services, LLC’s Motion for PostJudgment Receivership [Dkt. No. 36].

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 15, 2024

_________________________________________

DAVID L. HORAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01699-BN Document 40 Filed 07/15/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID 233