UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BENEFIT DOCUMENTS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-12313

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

HONORABLE MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

______________________________/

ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION [33], ADOPTING THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [32], AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION [27] WITH LIMITATIONS

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [32]. The Report

and Recommendation (R&R) recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Proceedings Supplementary

to Judgment [27] should be granted with specified limitations. Defendants filed an Objection [33]

to the R&R. Plaintiff filed a Response [34]. 

 Defendants raise two objections to the R&R: 1) that there is a dispute as to how much has

been paid by Defendants towards the settlement; and 2) that the restrictions in the R&R are overly

broad. Obj. [33], at 1-2. The Court disagrees and overrules Defendants’ objections.

As to the first objection, Defendants argue that there is a genuine dispute between the parties

as to the amount that is still owed towards the settlement. Defendants also request that the Court

hold a hearing to resolve the alleged dispute before “any draconian and restrictive orders are issued

. . . .” Obj. [33], at 1. 

First, as Plaintiff has noted in its Response [34], the amount of payments that have been

made is immaterial at this point when it is undisputed that the judgment has not been satisfied. See

Resp. [34], at 1. Plaintiff is entitled to seek the Court’s assistance in executing a judgment. See

2:09-cv-12313-AJT-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 01/26/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 130
2

MCL 600.6104. Second, Defendants’ mere conclusion that a dispute exists, without specific

allegations or evidence, is insufficient to warrant a hearing at this time. Third, Defendants have

failed to provide any explanation to support the conclusion that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed

restrictions are “draconian.” Defendants’ first objection is, therefore, overruled. 

As to the second objection, Defendants argue that the proposed restrictions are overly broad

because they would preclude Defendants from spending funds on normal living expenses. Obj. [33],

at 2. Plaintiff has agreed with Defendants that the proposed restrictions “should not prevent

Defendants from buying groceries, transacting business, paying bills or taking care of expenses in

the ordinary course.” Resp. [34], at 3. The Court does not find it necessary to further clarify the

Magistrate Judge’s proposed restrictions, as there is no dispute regarding this issue. Defendants’

second objection is also overruled.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection [33] is OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [32] of the Magistrate

Judge is hereby ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [27] is GRANTED with the

limitations specified by the Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Dated: January 26, 2012 SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

______________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on January 26, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court

sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was

mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on January 26, 2012: None.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

(313) 234-5182

2:09-cv-12313-AJT-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 01/26/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 131