Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Glasser v. Blixseth

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 17, 2015



RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.


This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for an order holding defendant Jessica T. Blixseth in contempt of court, granting a preliminary injunction, issuing a prejudgment writ of attachment, authorizing the filing of an amended complaint, and authorizing discovery. Dkt. # 35. Specifically, plaintiff asks this court to: (1) hold Mrs. Blixseth in contempt for conduct which occurred prior to this court's issuance of a restraining order, and as a coercive sanction, to issue an injunction prohibiting her from selling, transferring or encumbering certain real property owned by her in this district, (2) issue a prejudgment writ of attachment against that real property, (3) allow plaintiff to amend the complaint to add Mrs. Blixseth's mother, Cheryl B. Ferguson, and her marital community, and (4) allow plaintiff to conduct discovery prior to the stay imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.


Plaintiff, the Trustee of the Yellowstone Club Liquidating Trust, filed the instant action on October 14, 2014 seeking to set aside certain alleged fraudulent transfers of assets that Timothy L. Blixseth made to his wife, defendant Jessica T. Blixseth ("Mrs. Blixseth") and/or her limited liability company, defendant JTB, LLC ("JTB"). Dkt. # 1. On that same day, plaintiff notified attorneys who had represented the Blixseths in numerous other matters that plaintiff had commenced this action. Dkt. # 2, p. 22. Plaintiff also filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction seeking to prevent any further transfer of the subject assets or their proceeds. Dkt. # 2. The court granted the TRO on October 22, 2014 and it became effective on October 24, 2014.[1] Among the assets plaintiff sought to freeze was the Piano Bar yacht, which the court later learned Mrs. Blixseth had already sold for a net amount of $1.6 million. Dkt. # 21, ¶ 10.

Coincidentally, on October 14, 2014 (the same day this action was filed), Mrs. Blixseth initiated a series of wire transfers that caused the balance in her personal bank account to go from approximately $1, 065, 571 to approximately $347, 510.99 in one day. Principal among these initial transfers was a $600, 000 wire to Mrs. Blixseth's mother, Cheryl B. Ferguson. The transfers continued for three more days and by October 17, 2014, just $35, 821 remained in her account. By the end of the month, the balance in Mrs. Blixseth's account was only $19, 650.38.[2] Dkt. # 35, p. 3; Dkt. #36, pp. 15-19.

Mrs. Blixseth was not formally served with process in this matter until October 22, 2014, due in part to circumstances described in the court's previous orders, which need not be repeated here. See Dkt. # 25, pp. 5-7 (summarizing declarations of process servers who made multiple attempts to serve Mrs. Blixseth). While it is certainly possible that she did not have any knowledge of this lawsuit on October 14, 2014, she never expressly states that in her declaration. Dkt. # 41. Her husband's long time attorney, Paul Brain, received notice of the action on that day, but despite having represented Mr. Blixseth in numerous other actions, he advised plaintiff's counsel on October 14, 2014 that he did not represent Mrs. Blixseth or JTB in this action, that he was not authorized to accept service on their behalf and that notice to him would not constitute notice to the Blixseths or JTB. Dkt. # 20; Dkt. # 43, ¶ 2. Mr. Brain has since appeared in this action on behalf of Mrs. Blixseth, JTB and the marital community of Mr. and Mrs. Blixseth. Dkt # 33.

The record before the court does not contain any evidence of communications between Mr. Brain and Mrs. Blixseth on October 14th, nor does it contain any evidence which establishes that Mrs. Blixseth had actual knowledge of this action on October 14th.


A. Order of Contempt and Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff asks the court to invoke its inherent power to hold Mrs. Blixseth in contempt and to order her to restore the amounts that she transferred out of her bank account beginning on October 14, 2014. As a coercive sanction, plaintiff also asks the court to enjoin Mrs. Blixseth from transferring certain of her real property until she restores that money. Plaintiff does not contend that the transfers at issue violated the TRO which became effective on October 24, 2014, but instead asks the court to punish conduct which occurred prior to the entry of the TRO.[3]

The court does indeed have this power, but invoking it requires detailed factual findings of bad faith conduct. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 50, 58 (1991). "It is firmly established that "[t]he power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts." Id. at 44. This power reaches both conduct before the court and that beyond the court's confines, for "[t]he underlying concern that gave rise to the contempt power was not... merely the disruption of court proceedings. Rather, it was disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary, regardless of whether such disobedience interfered with the conduct of trial." Id. A court, however, must exercise caution in invoking its inherent power. Id. at 50. When there is bad-faith conduct in the course of litigation that could be adequately sanctioned under the Rules, the court ordinarily should rely on the Rules rather than the inherent power. Id.

Here, the court certainly finds Mrs. Blixseth's series of transfers extremely suspicious. On the exact day that this action was filed, she basically emptied her bank account, which likely included the proceeds of the sale of the Piano Bar yacht - a fact alleged by plaintiff and not disputed by Mrs. Blixseth. She continued to make transfers for several days and by the end of the month, she had removed a little more than $1 million from her account. Among these transfers was a $600, 000 wire to her mother (an "insider" as defined by fraudulent transfer laws).[4] Although Mrs. Blixseth claims that this transfer was for the benefit of American Bank, she fails to provide any evidence of the American Bank account and fails to produce any documents showing that the $600, 000 was used to pay down a loan. Dkt. # 41.

Despite what appear to be questionable transfers by Mrs. Blixseth, however, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that would allow the court to make the detailed factual findings necessary to invoke its inherent contempt power. Unlike the facts in Chambers, here, there is no concrete evidence that Mrs. Blixseth had knowledge of this lawsuit on October 14, 2014 and then intentionally dissipated her assets. It may look that way and it would be fair to suspect that she did, but at this time there is insufficient evidence to allow the court to reach that conclusion. Although her current attorney received email notice on October 14th, he was not formally representing her at that time and there is no evidence of communications between them on that day. Absent such evidence, the court will not invoke its inherent contempt power to ...

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.