Southwest Heritage Bank v. Coury et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Southwest Heritage Bank,
Plaintiff,
v.
Steven C Coury, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00047-PHX-JZB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Southwest Heritage Bank’s and Defendants
Steven C. Coury’s and Steve Coury Ford, LLC’s “Stipulated Motion for Entry of Stipulated
Judgment” (doc. 35). This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to General Order
21-25.1 Considering the agreement of the aforementioned Parties, the Court recommends
granting the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment (doc. 35).
1 General Order 21-25 provides:
When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been
assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be
appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent
to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and
Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating [Senior United States District
Judge Stephen M. McNamee] to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the
order of dismissal . . . .
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. Background.
Plaintiff Southwest Heritage Bank commenced this action on January 6, 2025, with
the filing of its seven-count Complaint. See (doc. 1.) The counts contained in the Complaint
are: (1) a bank fraud claim under 12 U.S.C. §§ 1833a and 1344; (2) a federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and
1964(c); (3) an Arizona RICO claim under A.R.S. §§ 13-2314.04 and 13-2312(A); (4) a
conversion claim; (5) a fraud claim; (6) a negligent misrepresentation claim; and (7) an
unjust enrichment claim. (Id. at 4–7.) All seven claims were levied against all Defendants,2
including Steven C. Coury and Steve Coury Ford, LLC. (Id.)
The event giving rise to this action was an alleged “check kitting scheme” carried
out after Defendant Lincoln J. Moore was added as an authorized signer on Steve Coury
Ford, LLC’s checking account. (Id. at 3.) Following Lincoln J. Moore’s addition as a
signer, “[b]etween May and October 2024, [Steve Coury Ford, LLC] cycled approximately
$114.9 million through [its] Account, involving over 1,000 checks.” (Id.) “This activity
involved transferring funds between the Account and [Steve Coury Ford, LLC] accounts
at 1st Bank Yuma and Arizona Financial Credit Union.” (Id.) Beginning in October 2024,
Lincoln J. Moore began requesting multiple stop payments on checks deposited at other
financial institutions “shortly after depositing checks drawn on those institutions into
[Steve Coury Ford, LLC’s checking account].” (Id.) By November 27, 2024, Steve Coury
Ford, LLC’s checking account had a negative balance of $703,845.42. (Id.)
On January 13, 2025, and January 21, 2025, service was executed upon Defendants
Steve Coury Ford, LLC and Steven C. Coury, respectively. (Docs. 6, 8.) On February 5,
2025, the Clerk of Court entered Default against Steve Coury Ford, LLC and Steven C.
Coury. (Doc. 13.) After appearance of both Defendants, the Court vacated the Clerk’s Entry
of Default on July 10, 2025. (Doc. 31.) Thereafter, on August 25, 2025, Plaintiff and
Defendants Steve Coury Ford, LLC and Steven C. Coury filed their Stipulated Motion for
Entry of Stipulated Judgment. See (doc. 35.) The Parties assert that they have “reached a
2 Those Defendants are Steven C. Coury and Steve Coury Ford, LLC, Julie Ann
Coury, Lincoln J. Moore, and Jane Doe Moore. (Doc. 1 at 2.)
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
settlement that resolves all issues regarding allegations stated in the Complaint[,]” and that
the “Stipulated Judgment will resolve all matters for the litigation and its entry is the best
interest of justice.” (Id. at 2.) The Parties’ Stipulated Judgment contains the following
provisions:
This Stipulated Judgment is entered into by and between Plaintiff,
Southwest Heritage Bank (“SWH Bank”) and Defendants Steven C. Coury
and Steve Coury Ford, LLC (“Defendants Coury”) (collectively “the
Parties”). The Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions,
which shall be binding and enforceable as a judgment of this Court:
The Parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and
agree to the entry of judgment by Plaintiff SWH Bank against Defendants
Coury as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Stipulated Judgment incorporates by reference in its entirety the
Settlement Agreement and Release entered into between the parties on July
1, 2025, (“Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement shall be filed
with the Court only in the event enforcement proceedings are initiated under
this Stipulated Judgment.
2. PERFORMANCE OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
Each party shall perform all obligations set forth in the Settlement
Agreement according to the terms and conditions specified therein.
3. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of
enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Stipulated
Judgment., If this case is closed and there is a subsequent default under the
Settlement Agreement, the parties may file a stipulation or may file a motion
to reopen the case, which will not be opposed. Alternatively, the Parties
stipulate that a new case may be filed, they will not contest jurisdiction, and
the only issue which the Parties may litigate is whether the Settlement
Agreement has been breached. The Parties stipulate that they waive and are
estopped from litigating any other issues in the Settlement Agreement. In any
subsequent collection or enforcement action or further litigation, notice of
breach or service of process can be effectuated by 1st Class mail and the
response time and date shall be ten (10) calendar days from the post-marked
date of the mailed notice.
4. ENFORCEMENT
In the event of non-compliance with any provision of the Settlement
Agreement, the non-breaching party may seek enforcement through this
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court or otherwise. The parties stipulate that the Judgment shall be
immediately enforceable and that the Stipulated Judgment and Settlement
Agreement can be filed and/or recorded. Upon filing of any enforcement
motion in the Court, the Settlement Agreement shall be filed
contemporaneously with such motion, either publicly or under seal as the
Court may direct.
5. COSTS
Each party shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs, except as
otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement.
6. CONFIDENTIALITY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS
The parties agree that the Settlement Agreement shall remain
confidential and shall not be filed with the Court unless and until
enforcement proceedings are initiated. Nothing in this Stipulated Judgment
shall be construed as waiving any confidentiality provisions contained in the
Settlement Agreement.
7. DISMISSAL
Upon full performance of all obligations under the Settlement
Agreement, this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Parties further
stipulate that there exists no just cause or reason for delay, and as no further
matters remain pending, this Stipulated Judgment is entered pursuant to Rule
54, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Doc. 35-1 at 1–3.)
II. Discussion.
As a preliminary matter, the Court is satisfied that it has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action under federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Additionally, the Court has personal jurisdiction over this matter
and finds that venue is proper. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 297 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). As the jurisdictional requirements are
fulfilled, the Court will turn to whether an entry of the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment is
warranted in this case.
“Lawsuits can end by an adjudication or by an agreement between the parties.”
Daniels v. Hughes, 147 F.4th 777, 783 (7th Cir. 2025). While Plaintiff does not seek to end
this action as to all Defendants,—considering that motions for Default Judgment (doc. 38)
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Attorneys’ Fees (doc. 40) against Defendant Lincoln J. Moore are currently pending—
Plaintiff and Defendants Steven Coury Ford, LLC and Steven C. Coury have signaled a
preference to terminate this matter via the pen rather than the gavel. Such an outcome is
acceptable, and is even favored by federal courts. See Baker v. D.A.R.A. II, Inc., No.
CV062887PHXLOA, 2008 WL 4368913, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2008) (“Both federal
and Arizona courts have long favored compromise and settlement.”); see also Rose v.
Enriquez, No. CV 11-07838 DDP AJWX, 2012 WL 6618261, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19,
2012) (“Settlement agreements are highly favored as productive of peace and good will in
the community, as well as reducing the expense and persistency of litigation”) (cleaned
up). The Court does not find any reason to run counter to this trend.3
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Southwest Heritage Bank’s and Defendants
Steven C. Coury’s and Steve Coury Ford, LLC’s Stipulated Motion for Entry of Stipulated
Judgment (doc. 35) be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Southwest Heritage Bank
have judgment against Defendants Steven C. Coury and Steve Coury Ford, LLC pursuant
to the terms of the Stipulated Motion for Entry of Stipulated Judgment (doc. 35).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants Steven C. Coury and Steve
Coury Ford, LLC be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE upon full performance of
obligations under the Settlement Agreement. The Parties to the Settlement Agreement shall
notify the Court when all obligations under the Settlement Agreement have been
3 Courts do not generally “rule on a private settlement negotiated between parties.”
Hand v. Dionex Corp., No. CV 06-1318-PHX-JAT, 2007 WL 3383601, *1 (D. Ariz. Nov.
13, 2007). Still, the Parties’ Stipulated Judgment seems reasonable. Additionally, the
Court’s retention of ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement appears to be in
line with federal precedent. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
381–82 (1994) (“Even when, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)
(which does not by its terms empower a district court to attach conditions to the parties'
stipulation of dismissal) we think the court is authorized to embody the settlement contract
in its dismissal order or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the settlement
contract) if the parties agree. Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement
agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal
jurisdiction.”); see also Hughes, 147 F.4th at 783 (“A federal court can nonetheless retain
ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement so long as the court has not dismissed the
suit with prejudice, thus terminating federal jurisdiction.”) (cleaned up).
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
performed.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that within SIXTY (60) DAYS of adoption
of this report and recommendation, the Parties must notify the Court whether full
performance of obligations under the Settlement Agreement has been achieved. In absence
of such notice, and in the absence of either a motion to extend this deadline or a stipulated
motion to dismiss Defendants Steven C. Coury and Steve Coury Ford, LLC, IT IS
RECOMMENDED that Defendants Steven C. Coury and Steve Coury Ford, LLC be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE after the sixty-day deadline has expired.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should
not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 14 days
from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific
written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6,
72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections.
Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the
District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the
Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the
findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
Honorable John Z. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00047-SMM-JZB Document 44 Filed 11/03/25 Page 6 of 6