Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_99-cv-00842/USCOURTS-cand-4_99-cv-00842-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Recovery of Debt to US

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIMITRIOS H. SPATHIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 99-cv-00842-PJH 

ORDER OF CONTINUING 

GARNISHMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 20

Before the court is plaintiff the United States’ response to the court’s order to show 

cause regarding plaintiff’s application for an order of continuing garnishment. Dkt. 20. 

For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the application and ORDERS continuing 

garnishment, with the following limitations.

BACKGROUND

This matter regards the United States’ efforts to collect on the student loan debt of 

pro se defendant Dimitrios H. Spathis. On February 25, 1999, the United States sued 

Spathis, alleging default on a student loan debt of $10,694.86. On September 28, 1999, 

the court approved a consent judgment entered against Spathis in the amount of 

$15,155.47. Dkt. 9. With interest, the United States asserts that the amount owing on 

the judgment as of September 9, 2016, is $36,649.33 Dkt. 17 ¶ 8.

On July 21, 2016, the court granted the United States’ application for a writ of 

continuing garnishment in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 3205. Dkt. 14. The writ was 

served on the garnishee, Spathis’ employer The Container Store, and on Spathis himself 

on August 4, 2016. Dkt. 22. Spathis has not requested a hearing, objected, or otherwise 

Case 4:99-cv-00842-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

responded to the writ (or the garnishee’s answer), and the time period for doing so has 

elapsed. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5).

On August 1, The Container Store (the “Garnishee”) filed an answer objecting to 

the writ. Dkt. 16. The Container Store represents that Spathis works part time and his 

net biweekly wages are too low to be garnished under the Consumer Credit Protection 

Act. See 29 C.F.R. § 870.10(a); U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 

Fact Sheet #30: The Federal Wage Garnishment Law. The Garnishee states, however,

that garnishment has been applied to Spathis’ record, and that wages will be “forwarded 

if earnings are enough to withhold.”

On September 9, the United States filed an application for an order of continuing 

garnishment. Dkt. 17. On October 3, the court issued an order to show cause, raising 

two issues: (1) “why the application should not be denied given the garnishee’s 

representation that Spathis’ wages are too low to be garnished”; and (2) “how the writ of 

garnishment was served upon the defendant, and which address was used for service.” 

Dkt. 19.

The United States promptly responded to the order to show cause. It filed a proof 

of service showing that Spathis was served with the writ on August 4 by mail. Dkt. 22. 

The court is satisfied that service was properly effected.

The United States concedes that Spathis “currently” does not earn enough for any 

wages to be withheld, but argues that he might do so in the future. The United States 

understood the Garnishee’s objection as merely “a way of explaining that it cannot 

provide withholdings for the current pay period, or any other bi-weekly pay period in 

which Spathis’ non-exempt disposable wages do not exceed $435.00.” Dkt. 19 at 2. 

This position is consistent with the terms of the writ and the applicable law, and the 

United States “accepts this position as compliant with the law.” Id. Nonetheless, the 

United States argues that an order of garnishment should still be granted.

///

///

Case 4:99-cv-00842-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

The court hereby GRANTS the order of continuing garnishment. Provided, 

however, that the Garnishee shall only withhold and remit wages that are garnishable 

under the law, in compliance with the terms of the writ itself. See Dkt. 11-1 at 5; 29 

C.F.R. § 870.10(a); 15 U.S.C. §1673(a). In particular, should Spathis continue to earn 

less than $435 biweekly in disposable earnings in a given pay period, no monies shall be 

withheld for that pay period. 

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS the Garnishee to withhold 25% of any of 

Spathis’ earnings that are subject to withholding under the law and the terms of the writ, 

for all future pay periods. The Garnishee shall remit any withheld monies to the U.S. 

Department of Justice, and shall mail them to: Nationwide Central Intake Facility, P.O. 

Box 790363, St. Louis, MO 63179-0363. The payments will continue until the judgment 

is satisfied in full, or until the Garnishee no longer has in its possession or control any 

property belonging to the debtor, or until further order of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:99-cv-00842-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 3