IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JAMES A. DAVIS, and DEBRA A. DAVIS,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

DODGE COUNTY SHERIFF, JUDGE 

GEOFFREY HALL, Dodge County District 

Judge; LAMSON, DUGAN, MURRAY, PLC, 

a Nebraska Professional Corp; and PAUL 

DAVIS CO., an unincorporated business 

entity;

Defendants.

8:23CV221

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs James A. Davis’ and Debra A. Davis’ 

Complaint, Filing No. 1, and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Filing No. 

2, filed by Plaintiff James A. Davis. Upon review of Plaintiff James A. Davis’ Motion, the 

Court finds that he is financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court now 

conducts an initial review of the Complaint’s claims to determine whether summary 

dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff James A. Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on behalf of himself and his 

spouse, Debra A. Davis (“Debra”) (collectively the “Davises”), against Judge Geoffrey Hall 

of the District Court of Dodge County, Nebraska (“Judge Hall”); the Dodge County Sheriff; 

Lamson, Dugan, Murray, PLC, d/b/a/ Pentagon Federal Credit Union Legal Department 

(“Lamson Dugan”); and Paul Davis Company (“PDC”). 

Plaintiff indicates that the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is a federal question and 

alleges that this is a “RICO action (civil).” Filing No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges the amount 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 1 of 16 - Page ID # 45
2

in controversy is $8,000,000 and submits the following as his “Statement of Claim”: 

“conspiracy to commit murder, murder for hire, fraud, theft, theft by coercion/deception, 

Bank Fraud, Insurance Fraud; Violation of Civil Rights[,] Battery/Wrongful Death.” Id. at 

4. As relief, Plaintiff asks the Court to “Stay all State Court proceedings & Allow disabled 

party to obtain counsel & proceed in Federal Court.” Id. at 5.

Along with his Complaint, Plaintiff filed a 30-page Motion for Emergency 

Temporary Restraining Order. Filing No. 3. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks 

to prevent the May 27, 2023, Court ordered sale of the residence at 1643 

North “I” Street in Fremont, Nebraska, as part of the continuing pattern of 

illegally taken real estate and foreclosures following the diagnoses of James 

Davis with Parkinson’s disease and other major disabilities as stated herein, 

being the tenth parcel taken from the Davis[es] by Judge Hall of the Dodge 

County District Court.

Id. at 1. The remainder of the motion is rambling, disjointed, and difficult to decipher. As

best the Court can tell, Plaintiff alleges that after he suffered serious health problems, a 

number of legal actions were filed against Plaintiff (or Plaintiff and Debra) over which 

Judge Hall presided and resulted in “taking approximately $9 million dollars in real 

property from James and Debra Davis.” Id. at 4. One of these legal actions appears to 

involve Plaintiff’s residence at 1643 North “I” Street in Fremont, Nebraska (the “Fremont 

residence”) and Defendants PDC and Lamson Dugan, who along with Judge Hall are 

engaged in “ongoing harassment” of Plaintiff. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also appears to allege that 

PDC and its owner Michael Endorf (“Endorf”) performed faulty work on Plaintiff’s house 

after Plaintiff suffered a “house fire in 2019,” Id. at 5 & 15–16, and that Endorf stole certain 

property and “attempt[ed] to kill” Plaintiff and Debra 

1

st

- by breaking open all the gas lines in the house;

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 2 of 16 - Page ID # 46
3

2

nd

- by Hot-Wiring the electrical such that it would have caught fire inside 

the wall; &

3

rd

- He poisoned the house with 300lbs. of burned vinyl LP records -

creating Poly-Chloro Benzene & Heavy Metals - THE WORST POISONS & 

CARCINOGENS THERE ARE.

Id. at 9–10. 

A search of Nebraska state court records shows that a trial order and final 

judgment was entered on February 21, 2023, by Judge Hall in Paul Davis Systems of 

Omaha, Inc. d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration of Omaha v. James A. Davis and Debra A. 

Davis, No. CI19-555, District Court of Dodge County, Nebraska, in which Judge Hall 

entered judgment in favor of PDC after a bench trial at which Plaintiff and Debra did not 

appear and PDC was represented by Lamson Dugan.1 Judge Hall entered judgment in 

the total amount of $170,299.16 against Plaintiff and Debra, which included a judgment 

of $115,871.68 in favor of PDC on its cause of action for foreclosure of a construction 

lien. In relevant part, Judge Hall found:

(1) PDR2 had a residential improvement contract under the Nebraska 

Construction Lien Act with the Defendants,[ the Davises,] the owners 

of the real property located at 1643 N. I Street in Fremont, Dodge 

County, Nebraska 68025. The scope of the parties’ contract included 

restoration of the Defendants’ residence and the cleaning of 

Defendants’ contents, the sorting, packing and removal of which was a 

prerequisite to PDR being able to perform the restoration work;

(2) Pursuant to the contract, PDR performed work and provided materials 

totaling $170,768.83. The work was done in a good and workmanlike 

manner and at a cost that was fair and reasonable and consistent with 

industry standards. In total, PDR received payments totaling 

$54,897.15, leaving a balance owed under the contract of $115,871.68; 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 

n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records). Nebraska's judicial 

records may be retrieved on-line through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi.

2 PDR is the abbreviation used by Judge Hall to refer to Paul Davis Systems of Omaha, Inc. d/b/a Paul 

Davis Restoration of Omaha, which is clearly the same entity identified as Paul Davis Company (“PDC”) in 

the Complaint.

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 3 of 16 - Page ID # 47
4

(3) Following Defendants’ failure to pay the outstanding balance, PDR filed 

a valid lien on Defendants’ property in accordance and compliance with 

the Construction Lien Act, including providing Defendants with timely 

notice of the lien . . . .

Trial Order and Final Judgment dated Feb. 21, 2023, No. CI19-555, District Court of 

Dodge County, Nebraska (see attached pdf). Judge Hall further ordered that the Davises 

would be deemed in default after 30 days for any unpaid amount owed on the judgment 

and, upon such default, the Fremont residence shall be sold by the Sheriff of Dodge 

County, Nebraska, and the proceeds applied to satisfy the judgment of PDC. Id. The 

state court records indicate that the Fremont residence was sold by the Dodge County 

Sheriff on June 2, 2023.

II. STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The Court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether 

summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court must dismiss a 

complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant 

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, 

and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase 

Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 

968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[ ] 

their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be 

dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 4 of 16 - Page ID # 48
5

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the 

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

“A pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a 

lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). This means that “if the essence of an allegation 

is discernible, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should 

construe the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within 

the proper legal framework.” Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004). However, 

even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief 

as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980).

III. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS

A. Co-Plaintiff Debra A. Davis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff named Debra as a plaintiff in the caption of his 

Complaint, but Debra did not sign the Complaint. See Filing No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff indicates 

Debra is his spouse, and Plaintiff also indicates he is an attorney as he has included his 

bar number underneath his signature block. Id. However, a search of the Nebraska 

Attorney Services Division’s online records of attorneys licensed to practice in the State 

of Nebraska shows that Plaintiff’s license status is currently “Disability Inactive” and 

subject to an administrative suspension. See

https://mcle.wcc.ne.gov/ext/SearchLawyer.do (search result for “Davis, James”) (Last 

visited June 13, 2023). The Court’s records also do not show that Plaintiff has been 

admitted to practice in this Court. See NEGenR 1.7(a) (“The bar of this court consists of 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 5 of 16 - Page ID # 49
6

persons admitted to practice before the court.”); NEGenR 1.7(d) (“An attorney admitted 

and licensed to practice before the highest court of any state may apply for admission to 

practice in this court.”).

Plaintiff cannot represent Debra’s interests in federal court. First, Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 11(a) requires that all pro se parties to a case sign every pleading, written 

motion, and other paper that they submit to the Court. Rule 11(a) helps to ensure that 

pro se parties consent to the filing of documents on their behalf. See United States v. 

Brenton, No. 8:04CR262, 2007 WL 3124539, at *1-2 (D. Neb. Oct. 23, 2007) (discussing 

Johnson v. O’Donnell, No. 01-C-0257-C, 2001 WL 34372892 (W.D. Wis. Aug 24, 2001)). 

Second, it is improper for a non-lawyer, or, in this case, a lawyer without a valid law 

license and not admitted to the bar of this Court, to sign papers in place of, or to otherwise 

represent, parties other than themselves. See id. at *1 (citing 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1333, at 513 & n.15 (2004)); see also Vaidya v. 

Kijakazi, No. CV 22-11208-LTS, 2022 WL 16702409, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2022) (retired 

attorney not admitted to the bar of the federal court could not act on behalf of attorney’s 

sister in benefits dispute between sister and government agency). Thus, the Court does 

not consider Debra as a plaintiff in this action.

B. RICO Claim

Liberally construed, Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the Racketeer 

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), which makes it “unlawful for any 

person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of 

which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or 

indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 6 of 16 - Page ID # 50
7

activity or collection of unlawful debt.” Nitro Distrib., Inc. v. Alticor, Inc., 565 F.3d 417, 

428 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)). “RICO provides a private right of action 

for any person ‘injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of’ its 

substantive prohibitions.” Dahlgren v. First Nat’l Bank of Holdrege, 533 F.3d 681, 689 

(8th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)). However, RICO “does not cover all 

instances of wrongdoing. Rather, it is a unique cause of action that is concerned with 

eradicating organized, long-term, habitual criminal activity.” Gamboa v. Velez, 457 F.3d 

703, 705 (7th Cir. 2006). “A violation of § 1962(c) requires [a plaintiff] to show ‘(1) conduct 

(2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.’” Nitro Distrib., 565 

F.3d at 428 (quoting Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)). “Plaintiffs

must allege each of these RICO elements to state a claim.” Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Doe, 

660 F.3d 346, 355 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gamboa, 457 F.3d at 705) (cleaned up).

A RICO enterprise “includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, 

or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not 

a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). “[A]n association-in-fact enterprise must have at 

least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the 

enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s 

purpose.” Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009). Even when considered 

together with the Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff has 

alleged no facts to show there was an association-in-fact enterprise between any of the 

Defendants. Plaintiff also fails to allege the necessary “pattern” of racketeering activity 

required by Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n.14. Rather, at most, he only alleges that Judge 

Hall, Lamson Dugan, and PDC acted to collect a debt through the sale of the Fremont 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 7 of 16 - Page ID # 51
8

residence. See, e.g., Deviries v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 805 F.2d 326, 329 (8th Cir. 

1986) (“Deviries claims that defendants engaged in a ‘pattern’ of allegedly fraudulent 

securities sales over the course of six years. However, each of the activities comprising 

the ‘pattern’ pertains to alleged misrepresentations and ‘churning’ in connection with 

Deviries’s account. . . . If proven, defendants’ actions at worst would comprise one 

scheme to generate excessive sales commissions by recommending unsuitable 

investments and churning Deviries’s account. This is insufficient to state a RICO claim.”); 

Rolfes v. MBNA Am. Bank N.A., 416 F. Supp. 2d 745, 753 (D.S.D. 2005), aff'd, 219 F. 

App'x 613 (8th Cir. 2007) (“Mere allegations that [bank], its attorneys and the presiding 

judge defrauded Plaintiff in the course of collecting a debt cannot raise this single attempt 

to collect a debt to the level of a federal RICO violation.”). Plaintiff’s failure to allege facts 

in support of the enterprise and pattern elements is fatal to his RICO claim. 

C. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

To the extent Plaintiff may be asserting other federal civil rights claims, see Filing 

No. 1 at 4, the Court finds that such claims would be barred pursuant to the RookerFeldman doctrine.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, with the exception of habeas corpus 

petitions, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state 

court judgments and state proceedings. Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 931 (8th Cir. 

2005). See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. 

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Specifically, the doctrine “bars federal courts from 

hearing cases brought by the losing parties in state court proceedings alleging ‘injury 

caused by the state-court judgment and seeking review and rejection of that judgment.’” 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 8 of 16 - Page ID # 52
9

Mosby, 418 F.3d at 931 (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 

280 (2005)). In fact, federal district courts do not have jurisdiction “over challenges to 

state-court decisions . . . even if those challenges allege that the state court’s action was 

unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486; see also Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 

548-49 (8th Cir. 2003) (dismissing claims under Rooker-Feldman doctrine where the relief 

requested in the complaint would effectively reverse or undermine the state court decision 

or void its ruling and noting that “[f]ederal district courts thus may not ‘exercis[e] 

jurisdiction over general constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with 

specific claims already adjudicated in state court’” (citation omitted)). Put simply, a federal 

district court does not possess authority in a civil rights case to review or alter a final 

judgment of a state court judicial proceeding. See West v. Crnkovich, No. 8:12CV273, 

2013 WL 2295461, at *3 (D. Neb. May 24, 2013); see also Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 

293, 297 (8th Cir. 1990) (the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine applies to Section 1983 actions 

as well as claims for injunctive and declaratory relief).

Here, Plaintiff seeks a stay to prevent the enforcement of Judge Hall’s judgment in 

favor of PDC. The Court cannot grant such relief as to do so would effectively reverse or 

undermine the state court judgment. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants seeking 

relief from the court-ordered sale of the Fremont residence are barred by RookerFeldman and must be dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a RICO claim upon which relief may be granted 

against Defendants and any other federal claims contained in the Complaint are barred 

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 9 of 16 - Page ID # 53
10

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this matter without 

prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff James A. Davis’ Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, 

Filing No. 2, is granted and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees.

2. This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

3. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum 

and Order.

4. Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, 

Filing No. 3, is denied as moot.

Dated this 15th day of June, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 10 of 16 - Page ID # 54
1 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DODGE COUNTY, NEBRASKA 

PAUL DAVIS SYSTEMS OF 

OMAHA, INC. d/b/a PAUL DAVIS 

RESTORATION OF OMAHA, a 

Nebraska Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES A. DAVIS and DEBRA A. 

DAVIS, a married couple, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: CI 19-555 

TRIAL ORDER AND 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a bench trial on February 9, 

2023. The trial, which has been set since August 29, 2022, was scheduled to 

commence at 9:30 a.m. At the set date and time, Plaintiff Paul Davis Systems Of 

Omaha, Inc., d/b/a Paul Davis Restoration Of Omaha (hereinafter, “PDR”), was 

present through a corporate representative and represented by counsel of record, 

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim. Defendants did not appear. The trial began at 

approximately 10 a.m., at which time Plaintiff presented testimony from 

witnesses and offered numerous exhibits into evidence. In addition to receiving 

the testimony and exhibits into evidence, the Court also took judicial notice of the 

court file. 

Upon completion of the evidence, the Court recessed so it could review 

the court file, the exhibits received into evidence, and its notes from the trial. 

Having done so, the Court now makes the following findings: 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter;

2. Final judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against

Defendants in the total amount of $170,299.16, determined as follows: 

Filed in Dodge District Court

*** EFILED ***

Case Number: D05CI190000555

Transaction ID: 0019548341

Filing Date: 02/21/2023 12:18:53 PM CST

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 11 of 16 - Page ID # 55
2 

a. As to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action (Foreclosure of Construction 

lien), the Court finds: 

(1) PDR had a residential improvement contract under the Nebraska 

Construction Lien Act with the Defendants, the owners of the real 

property located at 1643 N. I Street in Fremont, Dodge County, 

Nebraska 68025. The scope of the parties’ contract included 

restoration of the Defendants’ residence and the cleaning of 

Defendants’ contents, the sorting, packing and removal of which 

was a prerequisite to PDR being able to perform the restoration 

work; 

(2) Pursuant to the contract, PDR performed work and provided 

materials totaling $170,768.83. The work was done in a good and 

workmanlike manner and at a cost that was fair and reasonable and 

consistent with industry standards. In total, PDR received 

payments totaling $54,897.15, leaving a balance owed under the 

contract of $115,871.68; 

(3) Following Defendants’ failure to pay the outstanding balance, PDR 

filed a valid lien on Defendants’ property in accordance and 

compliance with the Construction Lien Act, including providing 

Defendants with timely notice of the lien; and 

(4) Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff on its Second Cause of 

Action (Foreclosure of Construction Lien) in the amount of 

$115,871.68. 

b. As to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (Quantum Meruit) and Fifth 

Cause of Action (Storage Fees), the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff 

and awards storage fees at the rate of $181 per month for 39 months, 

for a total of $7,059.00. 

c. As to Plaintiff’s prayer for prejudgment interest, the Court finds as 

follows: 

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 12 of 16 - Page ID # 56
3 

(1) Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 45-104; 

 

(2) Pursuant to Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 (2019), interest began 

to accrue on September 20, 2019, the date the lien was filed, and 

continued to accrue at the statutory rate of twelve percent (12%) 

per annum until the date of the trial, February 9, 2023; 

(3) There are 1,238 days between September 20, 2019 and February 9, 

2023; 

(4) Under the formula set by the Nebraska Supreme Court in Weyh, 

the Court calculates prejudgment interest as follows: 

$115,871.68 x 12% x (1,238/365) = $47,136.60 

or 

$115,871.68 x .12 x 3.39 = $47,136.60 

(5) Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of 

$47,136.60 

 

d. Plaintiff is awarded court costs in the amount of $231.88. 

3. Plaintiff previously dismissed its First Cause of Action (Breach of 

Contract) without prejudice, and so the Court makes no findings on this claim; 

 

4. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden on its Third Cause of Action 

for Unjust Enrichment; 

5. Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees is denied. The parties shall pay 

their own attorney fees. 

6. Plaintiff is awarded post judgment interest; 

7. Defendants are ordered to remove, at their own expense and effort, 

the personal property currently being stored by PDR. The property must be 

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 13 of 16 - Page ID # 57
4 

removed on or before 5:00 p.m. Central time on February 28, 2023. If Defendants 

fail to remove their property as ordered, PDR is authorized to dispose of 

Defendants’ property by any method of PDR’s choosing without notice and 

without any recourse by Defendants. 

8. The proceeds being held at PenFed Credit Union subject to the 

Court’s Anti-Hypothecation Order dated November 2, 2020 (Account Numbers 

ending in 02-3 and 01-4) shall be paid to PDR no later than five (5) business days 

from the date of this judgment; 

9. After thirty (30) days from the entry of judgment, Defendants shall 

be deemed to be in default for any unpaid amount owed on the judgment, subject 

to any setoff or credit in the amount of the proceeds paid from the aforementioned 

bank accounts; 

10. Upon Defendants being deemed in default, Defendants’ real 

property, located at 1643 N. I Street in Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska 68025, 

shall be sold by the Sheriff of Dodge County, Nebraska, and the proceeds applied 

to satisfy the judgment of Plaintiff PDR, subject only to any claim or interest 

deemed superior under Nebraska law; 

11. In the event of such sale, all junior interests in Defendants’ 

property, including those of Defendants James and Debra Davis, shall be 

foreclosed of all right, title, interest, and equity of redemption in and to 

Defendants’ property and a writ of assistance shall be issued directly to the 

Sheriff of Dodge County, Nebraska, to place the purchaser at the aforesaid sale in 

possession of said premises. 

12. All other claims, motions, or requests for relief are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of February, 2023. 21st

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 14 of 16 - Page ID # 58
5 

BY THE COURT: 

 

Honorable Geoffrey C. Hall 

District Court Judge 

Prepared and submitted by: 

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, #22489 

Lamson Dugan & Murray LLP 

10306 Regency Parkway Drive 

Omaha, NE 68114-3643 

Tele: (402) 397-7300 

Fax:: (402) 397-7824 

ctrent-vilim@ldmlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

#763164 

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 15 of 16 - Page ID # 59
I, the undersigned, certify that on February 21, 2023 , I served a copy of the foregoing

document upon the following persons at the addresses given, by mailing by United States Mail,

postage prepaid, or via E-mail:

James A Davis Debra Davis

1643 North I Street 1643 North I Street

Fremont, NE 68025 Fremont, NE 68025

Michael G Mullin Cathy S Trent-Vilim

michael.mullin@kutakrock.com ctrent-vilim@ldmlaw.com

Drew D Engle

dengle@ldmlaw.com

Date: February 21, 2023 BY THE COURT: _____________________________________

CLERK

Last visited June 13, 2023

8:23-cv-00221-JFB-PRSE Doc # 7 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 16 of 16 - Page ID # 60