Crews v. Sun Solutions AZ LLC
2:23-cv-01589
D. Ariz.Sep 9, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jason Crews filed suit alleging Sun Solutions AZ LLC made illegal telemarketing calls to his cell phone using an ATDS and to a number registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry.
- Justin Villalobos, Sun Solutions’ owner/manager, was alleged to have personally participated in these calls and scripting.
- Defendants were served via alternative means but failed to respond; default was entered against both.
- The court granted default judgment only against Sun Solutions and limited damages to two actionable calls, awarding $1,000 in damages and $402 in costs; only Sun Solutions was the judgment debtor, not Villalobos.
- Plaintiff subsequently sought Rule 69 discovery (post-judgment discovery) from PayPal and Zelle regarding accounts associated with Villalobos’ and Sun Solutions’ email addresses, aiming to enforce the money judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Rule 69 discovery | Crews sought broad discovery about financial accounts linked to Villalobos and Sun Solutions to enforce the money judgment | No argument presented (Defendants defaulted) | Granted in part: Only limited discovery from PayPal/Zelle regarding the SunSolutions.com email, not Villalobos’s personal data |
| Inclusion of Villalobos as judgment debtor | Crews argued Villalobos should be subject to post-judgment discovery due to personal role in violations and ordered payment of service expenses | No response | Only Sun Solutions is the judgment debtor for Rule 69 purposes; discovery cannot target Villalobos for service expenses |
| Discovery of third-party assets | Crews sought financial information about Villalobos on theory it might reveal Sun Solutions’ assets | No response | No showing of fraudulent collusion between Villalobos and Sun Solutions; discovery of Villalobos’s personal accounts not allowed |
| Scope of permissible subpoenas | Plaintiff wanted broad data including personal/transactional details | No response | Subpoenas can only seek names of financial institutions tied to justin@sunsolutions.com; no transaction histories or personal identifying info |
Key Cases Cited
- Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978) (Rule 69 discovery has narrow focus—solely to enforce judgment via supplemental proceedings)
- Labertew v. Langemeier, 846 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2017) (Rule 69 applies only to money judgments of the federal court)
- Republic of Argentina v. NML Cap., Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014) (Rules for post-judgment discovery are permissive; broad asset searches allowed)