United States District Court, S.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C. ADAMS, CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the undersigned is Plaintiff Wells Fargo Vendor Financial
Services, L.L.C.'s (“Wells Fargo”)
Application for Immediate Writ of Replevin and Request for
Expedited Hearing. . Wells Fargo seeks an immediate writ
of replevin to recover four Doosan Air Compressors, pursuant
to the terms of a lease agreement and a loan agreement
between Wells Fargo and Defendant Naval Coating, Inc.
(“Naval Coating”). See (Pl. Application
for Writ and Expedited Hearing  at 1-2). Naval Coating has
yet to file anything in this case, nor have counsel entered
an appearance on its behalf.
undersigned granted Wells Fargo's request for an
expedited hearing on the immediate writ for replevin on
August 23, 2019. . Pursuant to the undersigned's Order
granting the expedited hearing, Naval Coating was served with
the Order granting the request for the expedited hearing on
August 27, 2019. . The undersigned held the hearing on
September 17, 2019. . Naval Coating did not appear. The
undersigned considers the Application for Immediate Writ of
Replevin on the papers filed and oral submissions made during
Fargo brings the instant action as a result of Naval Coating
defaulting on a lease agreement as well as a loan agreement.
Wells Fargo brings two counts against Naval Coating. Wells
Fargo brings an action for replevin to recover four Doosan
air compressors which were collateral under the agreements.
Wells Fargo also brings a breach of contract claim to recover
a money judgment for amounts owed under the agreements. The
instant Motion concerns Wells Fargo's attempt to secure
pre-judgment possession of the air compressors.
Fargo entered into two separate agreements with Naval
Coating, a California corporation with its principal place of
business in San Diego that provides industrial and maritime
painting and coating services to various businesses including
the U.S. Navy. Wells Fargo believes that the air compressors
it seeks to recover are still in Naval Coating's control
in San Diego County, California. Wells Fargo is a
single-member LLC, and its sole member is incorporated and
has its principal place of business in Iowa. Both the lease
and loan agreements entered by the parties specify that they
are governed by Iowa law, and that any legal action or
proceeding will be brought exclusively in the federal or
state courts of Iowa.
September 27, 2017, Wells Fargo and Naval Coating entered
into a lease agreement whereby Wells Fargo agreed to acquire
and lease to Naval Coating one Doosan Air Compressor bearing
serial number 472399. On December 19, 2018, Wells Fargo and
Naval Coating entered into a loan agreement whereby Wells
Fargo agreed to finance Naval Coating's purchase of three
Doosan Air Compressors bearing serial numbers 472147, 472612,
and 478153. Wells Fargo retained security interests in the
air compressors, and later perfected those interests by
filing UCC Financing Statements with the California Secretary
of State on October 6, 2017 and December 26, 2018. Naval
Coating apparently defaulted on the terms of the two
agreements by failing to make the required payments. Wells
Fargo sent Naval Coating notice of defaults on June 13, 2019,
and thereafter sent demand letters for amounts due under the
agreements on July 23, 2019.
Fargo now seeks to take possession of the air compressors.
Wells Fargo believes that Naval Coating is in possession of
the four air compressors somewhere in San Diego County,
California. Wells Fargo represents that the value of the air
compressors is depreciating and thus its ability to recoup
its damages through sale or lease of the compressors
diminishes daily. Finally, Wells Fargo asserts that Naval
Coating is in such financial stress that its employees are
not being paid.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Fargo seeks an immediate writ of replevin to the U.S.
Marshall in the Southern District of California, San Diego
office, to repossess the four air compressors. Because of the
nature of the requested relief, the undersigned has opted to
submit her proposed findings and recommendation for the
disposition of the Motion to the presiding district judge in
this matter, Chief District Judge John A. Jarvey.
See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (discussing limited
matters on which a magistrate judge may not issue a final
determination but allowing a magistrate judge to submit a
report and recommendation on those matters). Accordingly, the
undersigned will proceed by analyzing the applicable law,
making relevant proposed findings, and finally offering a
proposed recommendation for the disposition of the Motion
based on the foregoing.
Rule of Civil Procedure 64 provides the procedures available
to a litigant seeking to “seiz[e] a person or property
to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 64(a). In totality, Rule 64 provides:
(a) Remedies Under State Law--In General. At the
commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is
available that, under the law of the state where the court is
located, provides for seizing a person or property
to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a
federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies. The remedies available under
this rule include the following--however designated and
regardless of whether state procedure ...