Hendricks & Lewis Pllc, a Washington professional limited liability company v. George Clinton, an individual

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENDRICKS & LEWIS PLLC, a
Washington professional limited liability
company,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-56892
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09921-ODW-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
HENDRICKS & LEWIS PLLC, a
Washington professional limited liability
company,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE CLINTON, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee,
And
ALLAN LAW GROUP, P.C.,
No. 13-55402
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09921-ODW-
PLA
FILED
APR 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Intervenor-Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In our February 19, 2014, order, we remanded for a statement of the district
court’s reasons for (1) denying Hendricks & Lewis’s motion for assignment of
royalty streams; (2) granting George Clinton’s motion to release levies; and (3)
accepting and reviewing Clinton’s ex parte submissions in camera.
In its Statement of Reasons, filed on March 27, 2014, the district court did
not explicitly provide reasons for its prior decisions. Rather, the district court said
that it had “reconsidered the evidentiary record” and indicated that, “should the
Ninth Circuit remand [on H&L’s motion for assignment of royalty streams], the
Court would reconsider its prior order and grant assignment of Clinton’s rights to
royalty payments to H&L.” The district court added that “if permitted by remand,
the Court would restrain Clinton from disposing of or otherwise encumbering his
rights to royalty payments” and “would also require Clinton to turn over
documentation of his royalty rights to H&L.”

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court also said that, on further review of the record, it believed
“that H&L may levy Clinton’s assets to the extent necessary to secure the money
judgment owed by Clinton. H&L may do so even as it pursues the assignment of
Clinton’s royalties.” The district court concluded: “If remanded, the Court would
reconsider its decision to release H&L’s levies.”
Accordingly, we continue to vacate the district court’s prior orders, and we
now remand for further proceedings.
Because the prior orders protecting funds are vacated, we order provisionally
that any funds presently in the Attorney Trust Account of Mr. Thennisch shall be
held and preserved, and that any funds received from third-party royalty payors
after the date of this order shall also be preserved. The district court may make
alternate orders to preserve the property in due course until it rules once more on
the pending motions. The panel will retain jurisdiction over this appeal, pending
this remand.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --