Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-mc-00110/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-mc-00110-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

In Re:

ANC Rental Corporation, et al.

__________________________________

Alamo Rent A Car LLC, National Car

Rental Systems, Inc., and ANC Rental

Corporation, 

Judgment Creditors, 

vs.

A Plus Auto Body & Paint Inc.,

Judgment Debtor. _________________________________

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

Garnishee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC08-110-PHX-ROS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE ROSLYN O. SILVER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

This matter arises on Judgment Creditors’ Application for Judgment on Garnishment,

filed on June 16, 2009. (Doc. #9.) Judgment Creditors seeks entry of Judgment against

Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Garnishee”), for nonexempt monies in the amount of

$15,223.83 purportedly belonging to Judgment Debtor A Plus Auto Body & Paint Inc.

United States District Judge Roslyn O. Silver referred this case to the undersigned for the

garnishment proceedings. (Doc. #11.)

Case 2:08-mc-00110-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/19/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

A review of the record demonstrates that on December 14, 2004, the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered default judgment against Judgment

Debtor in favor Judgment Creditors for the amount of $22,758.50. (Doc. #1.)

On April 2, 2009, Judgment Creditors filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment

(Non-Earnings) against the Garnishee alleging in pertinent part that:

a. [The Garnishee] is indebted to the Judgment Debtor for monies which

are not earnings;

b. [T]he Garnishee is holding nonexempt monies on behalf of the

Judgment Debtor;

c. [T]he Garnishee has in its possession non-exempt personal property

belonging to the Judgment Debtor[.]

(Doc. #5.) On April 9, 2009, a Writ of Garnishment and Summons (Non-Earnings) was

issued to the Garnishee requesting, inter alia, that the Garnishee file an answer to the Writ

as to:

1. Whether the garnishee was indebted to or otherwise in possession of

monies of the Judgment Debtor at the time the writ was served.

2. The total amount of indebtedness or monies in possession of the

garnishee at the time the writ was served.

3. The amount of indebtedness or monies withheld by the garnishee

pursuant to the writ.

4. The amount of indebtedness or monies not withheld by the garnishee,

and the reason for not withholding.

5. Whether the garnishee was in possession of personal property of the

Judgment Debtor at the time the writ was served.

***

(Doc. #6.) Additionally, the Writ required the Garnishee to deliver to Judgment Debtor a

copy of the Writ and Notice. (Doc. #6.)

Thereafter, on April 22, 2009, the Garnishee filed an Answer to Writ of Garnishment

(Non-Earnings) indicating that, at the time of service of the Writ, “[a] total balance of

$15,223.83 is the amount of indebtedness or money withheld by the Garnishee pursuant to

the writ ... .” (Doc. #7.) The Garnishee also stated that it delivered copies of the “Writ and

Summons, Notice to Judgment Debtor, Underlying Judgment and Request for Hearing” to

Case 2:08-mc-00110-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/19/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Judgment Debtor on April 15, 2009 – by regular first class mail. (Doc. #7.) Further, the

Garnishee mailed its Answer to both Judgment Debtor and Judgment Creditors on April 20,

2009. (Doc. #7.)

On June 16, 2009, no objection to the Writ of Garnishment or Answer having been

filed, Judgment Creditors filed the subject Application for Judgment on Garnishment. (Doc.

#9.) On July 17, 2009, Judgment Creditors and Judgment Debtor filed a Stipulation for Entry

of Judgment on Garnishment and to Release Funds Held by Wells Fargo Bank, NA to ANC

Rental Corporation. (Doc. #12.) In the Stipulation, the parties stated that they “resolved

their differences and entered into a settlement agreement. That settlement agreement

provides for the entry of a judgment on garnishment in this action and for the release of the

funds being held by Wells Fargo Bank, NA to Judgment Creditor.” (Doc. #12.) The

proposed Stipulated Judgment on Garnishment attached to the Stipulation states the

following:

1. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (the “Garnishee”) held funds belonging to APlus Auto Body & Paint, Inc. (the “Judgment Debtor”) in the amount of

$15,223.83 at the time of service of the Writ.

2. At the time of service of the Writ the Judgment Debtor was indebted to

Judgment Creditor.

3. The court approves the stipulation entered by and between the

Judgment Creditor and the Judgment Debtor.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND

DECREED that:

The Judgment Creditor shall have Judgment against the Garnishee for $15,119.00, consisting of the following amounts:

Principal $15,000.00

Filing/Registration Fee $39.00

Service Fee of Wells Fargo Bank $55.00

Statutory Bank Search Fee $25.00

IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Garnishee is

entitled to an answer fee of $100.00 which is to be paid from the Judgment

Debtor’s account.

IT IS FURTHER ADJUDGED AND DECREED that $15,119.00

retained by the Garnishee pursuant to the Writ of Garnishment and this

Judgment are to be immediately paid to the Trust Account of Schneider &

Onofry, P.C. for the benefit of the Judgment Creditor.

Case 2:08-mc-00110-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/19/09 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

(Doc. #13-2.)

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that pursuant to the parties Stipulation for Entry

of Judgment on Garnishment and to Release Funds Held by Wells Fargo Bank, NA to ANC

Rental Corporation (Doc. #12), Judgment Creditors’ Application for Judgment on

Garnishment (Doc. #9) be DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court approve the Stipulation and

proposed Stipulated Judgment entered by and between the Judgment Creditor and the

Judgment Debtor, which sets forth the following terms:

The Judgment Creditor shall have Judgment against the Garnishee for $15,119.00,

consisting of the following amounts:

Principal $15,000.00

Filing/Registration Fee $39.00

Service Fee of Wells Fargo Bank $55.00

Statutory Bank Search Fee $25.00

The Garnishee is entitled to an answer fee of $100.00 which is to be paid from the

Judgment Debtor’s account, and $15,119.00 retained by the Garnishee are to be immediately

paid to the Trust Account of Schneider & Onofry, P.C. for the benefit of the Judgment

Creditor.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten 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);

Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a

response to the objections. Failure to timely file 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 timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Case 2:08-mc-00110-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/19/09 Page 4 of 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

- 5 -

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.

DATED this 17th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:08-mc-00110-ROS Document 15 Filed 08/19/09 Page 5 of 5