Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Alliance Commercial Concrete, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

December 20, 2016

CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLIANCE COMMERCIAL CONCRETE, INC., ALLIANCE CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ALLIANCE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendants.

          OPINION

          RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge

         On December 22, 2011, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Central Laborers' Pension Fund, et al. and against Defendant Alliance Concrete Construction, L.L.C., in the amount of $10, 094.50, as to Count II, and $370, 028.19, as to Count V.

         On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Combined Motion and Memorandum for a Rule to Show Cause, to Avoid Fraudulent Conveyances and to Turn Over Assets. See Doc. No. 90. On July 10, 2014, the Court Allowed the Motion and Ordered Michael Wardlow, as manager of Defendant Alliance Concrete Construction, L.L.C., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to comply with Citations to Discover Assets and, further, why he should not be held personally liable for the value of transferred assets, for making non-exempt transfers in violation of the Citation to Discover Assets. See Doc. No. 92.

         Since the July 10, 2014 Opinion and Order, there have been a number of filings by parties, interested parties and/or non-parties.

         Pending before the Court: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Turnover against the FDIC [Doc. No. 132-2]; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause against Great Southern Bank [Doc. No. 137] and (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss the FDIC's Counter-Petition for Failure to State a Claim for Declaratory Relief [Doc. No. 156]. The Court heard oral argument on these motions.

         I.

         In its July 10, 2014 Opinion and Order, the Court further stated that the Motion to Avoid the Alleged Fraudulent Transfers of Ten Vehicles against non-party Xtreme Caution, Inc. would be considered at the Show Cause Hearing. The Court also Allowed the Motion for Turnover and Ordered the turnover to the Plaintiffs of the proceeds of the sale of the ten vehicles sold by Valley Bank, to be applied by the Plaintiffs toward the outstanding judgments. On October 11, 2014, Interested Party Xtreme Caution, Inc. filed a Response to the Motion for Order to Show Cause, Avoid Fraudulent Conveyances and Turn Over Assets. See Doc. No. 112.

         On September 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Substitute Party, requesting that Valley Bank be replaced as an interested party by Great Southern Bank. See Doc. No. 108. In a Text Order entered on September 19, 2014, the Court Allowed the Motion and Great Southern Bank was added as an interested party.

         On October 13, 2014, Counsel entered an appearance on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Valley Bank (FDIC). See Doc. No. 114. The FDIC accepted its appointment as Receiver pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1811 et seq., on June 20, 2014. See Doc. No. 115-3.

         On October 13, 2014, the FDIC moved to vacate the July 10, 2014 Order as it pertains to Valley Bank. See Doc. No. 115. The FDIC contended the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Turnover as to Valley Bank because the Plaintiffs never served Valley Bank with the Motion. Because the FDIC was appointed as Receiver for Valley Bank on June 20, 2014, moreover, the Court did not have any jurisdiction against Valley Bank pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(13)(D).[1]Accordingly, the FDIC claimed the July 10, 2014 Order was void.

         On October 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Response to the FDIC's Motion. See Doc. No. 117. In their Response, the Plaintiffs alleged that because they filed a timely claim and also filed their Motion for Turnover before the FDIC's appointment as a receiver for Valley Bank, the Court retained jurisdiction over their Motion for Turnover. On April 1, 2015, the Court Denied the FDIC's Motion to Vacate the Order entered on July 10, 2014. See Doc. No. 128.

         On October 13, 2014, the FDIC also moved to vacate the September 19, 2014 Order substituting Great Southern Bank for Valley Bank, on the basis that Valley Bank was never properly served with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Turnover. See Doc. No. 116. The FDIC alleged that, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(c) and (d), it is the proper party to substitute as Valley Bank's successor by operation of law.[2] On April 1, 2015, the Court Denied the Motion to Vacate the Order entered on September 19, 2014, concluding that Great Southern Bank is the proper party. See Doc. No.

         Both Great Southern Bank and the FDIC filed Motions to Reconsider the April 1, 2015 Order on the Motion to Vacate and Substitute Party. See Doc. Nos. 129 & 130. In an Order entered on June 19, 2015, the Court Denied both Motions to Reconsider. See Doc. No. 136. The Court also Allowed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Turnover against the FDIC, and Ordered that the Motion for Turnover be docketed. See id.

         On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause against Great Southern Bank. See Doc. No. 137. The basis of the motion is that since the September 19, 2014, Great Southern Bank has failed to turn over the $106, 000 which its predecessor, Valley Bank, was Ordered to pay on July 10, 2014.

         On July 9, 2015, Great Southern Bank filed a cross-claim for declaratory relief and supplementary counter-petition for declaratory relief against the FDIC. See Doc. No. 142. On July 14, 2015, the FDIC, as receiver for Valley Bank, filed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.