Wyssling v. Swensen et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
SCOTT WYSSLING, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD SWENSEN, an individual;
VALKYRIE BRANDS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; VALKYRIE
GROUP, LLC, a Utah limited liability
company; VALKYRIE GROUP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and
DOES
1-99,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION
Case No. 2:23-cv-00344-TC-DBP
District Judge Tena Campbell
Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
Before the court is Plaintiff Scott Wyssling’s ex parte motion to join parties, freeze
assets, and alternative service.1 The court will deny the motion.
As noted by the court previously, on April 28, 2025, the court entered judgment in the
amount of $3,330,446 against Defendants Chad Swensen, Valkyrie Brands, LLC, Valkyrie
Group, LLC (Utah), and Valkyrie Group, LLC (Delaware).2 Following judgment the court has
entered various orders in response to Plaintiff’s collection efforts.
Recently, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and other
relief.3 In that order, the court provided:
1 ECF No. 101. Judge Tena Campbell originally referred this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) for
disposition of nondispositive pretrial matters. ECF No. 10. This case is now in the post judgment stage where
Plaintiff is pursuing collection efforts.
2 Judgment in a Civil Case, ECF No. 87.
3 Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Other Relief, ECF No. 100.
Case 2:23-cv-00344-TC-DBP Document 105 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
Before the court is Plaintiff Scott Wyssling’s motion for a temporary restraining
order, to join parties, for a preliminary injunction, and for alternative service.
(ECF No. 98.) But the court has already issued judgment in this matter and has no
jurisdiction to join new defendants or to issue a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff may, however, request supplementary
proceedings to aid in the execution of the court’s judgment. Indeed, the Plaintiff
has already done so.4
The court directed Plaintiff to Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provides
“[t]he procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or
execution—must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal
statute governs to the extent it applies.”5 The court also noted that as set forth in a prior order,
“the court may hold supplemental proceedings or an evidentiary hearing to aid Plaintiff in the
pursuit of collecting its judgment against the non-parties.”6
Plaintiff’s current motion seeks an “order freezing the assets of Defendants, Lana
Swensen, and Blue Lion LLC, joining Lana Swensen and Blue Lion, LLC as parties, and
authorizing alternative service of subpoenas.”7 In support Plaintiff reiterates many of the same
arguments the court found unpersuasive in denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and other relief. For example, in support of the requests, Plaintiff once again
notes the funnel through accounts, risk of continued dissipation of assets, the interest and
integrity of judicial proceedings in granting the requested relief and Federal Rule 25(c). Given
the nearly identical irreparable-harm framework, the court is not persuaded to join nonparties
without proper service of a motion. Nor will the court freeze assets of parties not yet in this
4 Id. at 1.
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1).
6 Order, Aug. 1, 2025, ECF No. 98 at 3.
7 Motion at 1.
Case 2:23-cv-00344-TC-DBP Document 105 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
litigation. The record indicates the current ex parte motion was not served on Lana Swensen or
Blue Lion LLC.
Federal Rule 25(c) provides, “If an interest is transferred, the action may be continued by
or against the original party unless the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in
the action or joined with the original party.”8 A motion must be served as provided for in Rule
25(a)(3), which indicates that a motion to substitute, along with a notice of hearing, must be
served on nonparties as set forth in Rule 4. Thus, it is improper to join or substitute nonparties
without proper service. The authority relied on by Plaintiff, does not provide for the freezing of
assets of nonparties or joining them without proper service. Further Rule 25(c) does not
authorize the freezing of assets because joinder is sought.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks alternative service for subpoenas. In support Plaintiff provides the
following:
Lana Swensen accepted service of subpoenas for nonparties Blue Lion, LLC and
Bleu Grave, LLC on September 13, 2024 at 748 N. Explorer Peak Dr., Heber
City, UT 84032. Thereafter, the Swensens either left the Explorer Peak Address
or lied to service processors to avoid service of multiple subpoenas. ECF No. 56.
Even when service was effectuated as ordered by this Court, the subpoenas were
never answered.
Plaintiff previously attempted service through all means available to them.
Service was attempted through service processor at the non-parties registered
addresses where service would not be accepted or the non-parties did not reside.
Although the principal location for Blue Lion, LLC (of which Lana is the
registered agent) is still listed as the N. Explorer Peak Dr. address, the new
mailing address was updated on September 3, 2025 to:
PO Box 38
Newport Beach, CA 926629
8
9 Motion at 10-11.
Case 2:23-cv-00344-TC-DBP Document 105 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
Given these circumstances, Plaintiff requests it be allowed to serve subpoenas on Lana Swensen
and Blue Lion, LLC via US Mail, postage prepaid to the PO Box set forth above.
Because the court declines to join Lana Swensen and Blue Lion, it denies Plaintiff’s
request for alternative service for subpoenas. The method and manner of serving subpoenas may
be determined at a future date once a Rule 25(c) is properly served on any nonparties. Plaintiff
may look to Federal Rule 4 and the Utah Civil Rules of Procedure in seeking to serve the
nonparties in this case. Plaintiff may seek to enforce the judgment against Defendants in this
matter and may seek to substitute nonparties if service is proper in accordance with the Rules.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14 January 2026.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:23-cv-00344-TC-DBP Document 105 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4