Opinion
3:22-cv-655-MMH-JBT
07-25-2023
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al. Plaintiffs, v. TREASHONNA P. GRAHAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District Judge
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Treashonna P. Graham's Response to Show Clause [sic] (Doc. 89; Response), filed on July 11, 2023. On July 7, 2023, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Doc. 87) directing Defendant Treashonna P. Graham to show cause why the Court should not impose sanctions based on her failure to comply with the terms of the Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief as to Defendants Treashonna P. Graham and C Lee Enterprises LLC (Doc. 76; Stipulated Judgment). Specifically, Graham has failed to comply with Part IV.B.2 of the Stipulated Judgment which requires her to deliver to the Receiver the specific watch identified on her personal financial statement. See Sixth Interim Report (Doc. 86; Report) at 11-13. Because she has failed to relinquish the watch despite ample time to do so, the Receiver proposes in his Report that Graham should receive nothing from the sale of the previously seized Graham Real Property.
Under the terms of the Stipulated Judgment, Graham was to receive $2,000 from the sale of the Graham Real Property, “provided that the Receiver determines that Graham has fully complied with her obligations pursuant to Section IV.B.” See Stipulated Judgment, Part IV.C. This amount was reduced to $1,000 when Graham failed to surrender the Graham Real Property in “broom clean condition” as required by the Stipulated Judgment. See id. at 6, 9, 21 n.1; Report at 13 n.11. Because the Court is adopting the Receiver's proposal, Graham will forfeit the remaining $1,000 to which she otherwise would have been entitled.
Upon review, the Court finds Graham's Response to be entirely inadequate. Indeed, Graham fails to address the whereabouts of the subject watch, nor does she explain why she purportedly no longer has possession of it. Nevertheless, Graham states that she has “no issue with the remaining value of the sale of the Real Property to be forfeited to the courts.” See Response at 1. As such, the Court adopts the Receiver's proposal in his Report and directs that Graham shall receive nothing from the sale of the previously seized Graham Real Property. Given the insufficiency of Graham's Response, the Court also declines to discharge the Order to Show Cause at this time and reserves consideration of whether additional sanctions are necessary.
DONE AND ORDERED.