811712017 4:47 PM HennePin CountY, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Doe 114, Jason Mclean, Plaintiff; Defendant. Case Type: Personal Injury Court File No.: 27-CV-16'1712 Judge Frank J. Magill, Jr, PLAINTIFF.CLAIMANT DOE 114'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT ATTACHMENT OT'PROPERTY INTRODUCTION plaintiff-claimant seeks an order of prejudgment attachment upon any and all of Defbndant-Respondcnt's nonexempt property situated in the State of Minnesota, Respondent has or.is about to move nonexempt propcrty with the intent to deloy or defrnud Claimant or for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reash of Claimant. Thus, to protect Claimant's interests, an order of prejudgment attachment is necessary. FACTS In 2015 and 2016, Claimant and four other individuals sued Respondent alleging that he sexually abused them as minors during his tenure as a Company Actor and employee of Defendant Children,s Theatre Company.l Respondent is an adult male former resident of Hennepin County, Minnesota. At all times material, Respondent was an actor or employee of Children's Theatre. 1 Claimant,s counsel has filed identical Memoranda of Law in Support of Motions for Orders of Prejudgment Attaclrment in the four filed rnatters involving Respondent: Laura Adams v, Children's Theatre Campany and Jaso-n Mclean,2j-CV-lS-20713; Doe 76 v. Childien's ifheatre Company and Jason Mclean,21'CV'15'21165; Doe I I6 v. Children's Theape Company and Jason McLean,27-CY-16-144; and Doe I I4 v, Jason Mclean,27'CV'16'1712. Claimants' briefs filed in each'matter are identical; the factual circumstances are the same, and each Claimant makes the same request of the Coutt.
811712017 4:47 PM Since Claimant commenced her action against Respondent, Respondent has failed to comply with the legal process. Despite Claimant's counsel's good faith effort to confer with Respondelt and secure his timely deposition, Respondent has refused to appear. After a hearing on Claimant's motion to compel on July 1.7,2017, this Court ordered Respondent to appear for his deposition on August 22,2017. Ultil approximately July 2017, Respondent owned and operated two prominent businesses in the heart of Minneapolis' Dinkytown neighborhood and personally owned one valuable property located at325l4th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Miruresota55414, This property includes the land and the building in which Respondent ran his business, the Loring Pasta Bar. According to Hennepin County's property tax records for 2016, the property's2016 estimated market value was $1,505,000. (Ex. A to Affidavit of Molly Burke). And for 2017,the property's estimated market value is $1,550,000, (Ex. B to Affidavit of Molly Burke). In July 2017, Respondent sent a letter to Claimant's counsel stating that he had acquired the funds necessary to hire an attorney and was in the process of doing so. (Ex. I to Affidavit of Plaintiff-Claimant Laura Adarns). According to a July 2017 newspaper al'ticle, Respondent sold his business, the Varsity Theater, to a real estate tirm for $2.51 million. (Ex. 2 to Affidavit of Plaintiff-Claimant Laura Adams). According to a newspaper article dated Augvst 2, 2017, Respondent entered into an agreement to sell his other business, the Loring Pasta Bar, and the property in which it operated located at 325 l4th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414,to three longtirne managers for an undisclosed amount. (Ex. 3 to the Affidavit of Plaintiff' Claimant Laura Adams). This property is nonexempt property personally owned by Respondent and subiect to attachment. 2
27-CV-16-',1712 Bl17120'17 4:47 PM Hennepin CountY, MN ARGUMNNT I. An Order of Prejudgment Attachment is Necessary to Protect Claimantts Interests. The purpose ancl intent of an order ofprejudgment attachment is to provide security for the satisfaction of a judgment that may be issued, and to preserve the status quo' Minn. Stat. $ 570.02, subd. 1 (2016); ln Re llstate ol'rosenberbor,495 N.W.zd234,235 (Mimr' Ct. App. 1993), A claimant may obtain an order of prejudgment attachment by demonstrating that one or more of the circumstances listed in Minn. Stat. $ 570.02 are present and that claimant has a probability of success on the merits. Minn, Stat. $ 570.026, subd. 3 (2016). A. Respondent Has Sold or is About to Sell Nonexempt Property to Delay or Defraud Clnimant and Place Non-Exempt Property Beyond Claimant's Reach. A claimant may obtain prejudgment attachment "when the respondent has assigned, secreted, or disposed of, or is about to assign. secrete, or dispose of, any of the respondent's nonexempt property, with intent to delay or defraud the respondentos creditors.n' Minn. Stat. $ 570.02, subd. 1(1). Additionally, prejudgment attachment is warranted "whenthe respondenthas converted or is about to convert any of the respondent's nonexempt property into money or credits, for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of the respondent's creditors."!f,, subd. I (3). Here, sutficient facts satisfy the grounds for prejudgment attachment. Respondent sold or is about to sell two prominent Minneapolis businesses and one valuable, nonexempt property, He has done so within weeks of Claimant's counsel's filing of a Motion to Compel his appearance at his deposition. In July 20lT,Respondent received $2.51 million in gross proceeds from his sale of the Var.sity Theater. (8x.2). Nevertheless, Respondent subsequently entered into an agreement to sell the Loring Pasta Bar and the nonexempt property located at located at 325 l4th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, where the Loring Pasta Bar was located. (Ex. 3). 3
8117120'17 4:47 PM This nonexempt property is valuable. The property's 2016 estimated market value was $1,505,000, and the property's 2017 estirnated market value is $1,550,000. (Exs, A, B). The sale price was not disclosed. Btrt Respondent's sale of the property to three longtime managers indicates a lack of motivation to obtain the best price possible. Whether an intent to delay creditors exists is a question of fact for the trial court. Dannheim I)cv.. Inc. v. Mogler,412 N.W.2d398,400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1937). But, when a respondent transferred his interest in a contract fur the sale of real estate within days after receiving notice of his deposition in a civil casc pending against hirn, this was sufficient evidence of intent to delay creditors..loncs v. Stoneking, Civ. File No. 06-3369,2006WL2620618, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 12, 2006). Here, Respondent has taken steps to sell nonexempt property 'after months of refusing to participate in the legal process, failing to appear multiple times lbr his deposition, and within weeks of Claimant seeking to compel his deposition. Respondent's intent is to delay and defraud Clairnant. Moreover, the sale of the nonexempt property is unnecessary for Mclean to pay for his legal clefense. Ct. Kclkinni v. Rielim, No. 27-CV-14-8647,2014WL11279551, at *2 (Mirur. Dist. Ct, June 27,2014) (denying claimant's motion fbr prejudgment attachment when respondent used money 1lorn the sale of nonexempt property to pay his criminal defense attorney). Signifrcantly, befbre selling the nonexempt property, Respondent informed Claimant's counsel that he had the t'unds to hirc counscl and was in the prooess of doing so. (Ex. l). Thus, in the two months since Claimant's counsel filed a motion to compel his attendance at his deposition, Respondent has disposed of a substantial portion of his nonexempt assets by selling or entering an agreement to sell the building located at 325 l4th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. The circumstances surrounding the transf'er of this building 4
8l'1712017 4:47 PM constitute extrinsic evidence of Respondent's actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Claimant, and his pulpose of placing the property beyond the reach of Claimant. B. Claimant is Likely to Succeed on the Merits. Claimant is likely to succeed on the merits of her case. Claimant Laura Adams testified under oath at her deposition on May 24,2017 and described Respondent's sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. Additionally, Claimants Doe 76,Doe ll4, and Doe 116 are able to testify under oath about Respondent's sexual abuse of them when they were minors. In sum, Respondent has or is about to assign, secrete, or dispose of nonexempt property with the intent to delay or defi'aud Claimant or has converted or is about to convert nonexernpt property for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of Claimant. Additionally, Clainrant has a probability of succeeding on the merits. Thus, to protect Claimant's interests, an order of prejudgment attachment is necessary. IL Alternatively, the Court is Empowered to Enter an Order the Court Deems Appropriate to Protcct Claimant's Interests. Alternatively, ifthe Court declines to orderprejudgment attachment, Claimantrespectfully requests that the Court enter an order to protect Claimant's rights to the extent possible pursuant to Miruresota Statutes $ 570.026, subdivision 4. The Court may require Respondent to post a bond in the amount set by the Court; restrain Respondent from selling, disposing, or otherwise encumbering property; or include any other provision the Court deems appropriate to protect Claimant's interests. Mirur, Stat. $ 570.026, subd. 4. CONCLUSION Claimant respectfully requests that the Court order the attachment of all nonexempt property belonging to Respondent, Alternatively, should the Court decline to order prejudgment attachment, Claimant requests that the Court order Respondent to post a bond in an amount 5
27-CV-'t6-1712 811712017 4:47 PM reasonably equivalent to the value of Respondent's total assets; resuein Respondent fiom selling, disposing, or otherwise encunboring any of his pl'opefiy; or grant any other relief the Court deems apprcpriate to protect Claimant's interests. Dated; August 17,2017, JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Jeflley #2057 Molly K. #0391477 366 Jackson Street, Suite 100 St, Paul, MN 55101 (6sI) 227-9990 j eff@andersonadvocates. com molly@andersonadvocates. com Attorneys for Plaintiff-Claimant Doe 114 6