Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00081/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00081-0/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

Essex Music, Inc.; Sony/ATV Harmony;

Panther Music Corp.; WB Music Corp.;

Chappell & Co., Inc., 

Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors,

vs.

Sonora Claremont, Inc.; Roberto Flores, 

Defendants/Judgment Debtors.

American Express TRS, Inc.,

Garnishee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-MC-00081-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Garnishment Judgment (Doc. 6).

 The Court now rules on the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 29, 2009, Judgment was entered against Defendants Sonora Claremont,

Inc. and Roberto Flores (“Judgment Debtors”), in favor of Plaintiffs Essex Music, Inc.,

Sony/ATV Harmony, Panther Music Corp., WB Music Corp., and Chappell & Co., Inc.

(“Judgment Creditors”), in the amount of $15,000 in statutory damages, $2,997.50 in

attorneys’ fees, and post-judgment interest as provided by law “from the date of entry of

judgment until the date the judgment is paid in full.” (Doc. 1). 

On July 26, 2011, Judgment Creditors requested a writ of garnishment against

Case 2:11-mc-00081-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Garnishee American Express TRS, Inc. (“AmEx”) (Doc. 5). At the time the writ was served,

the full amount of the judgment owed to Judgment Creditors was still outstanding. (Id. at 2).

In its Answer, AmEx indicated that, at the time the writ was served, it was in possession of

$158.44 in monies of Judgment Debtors. (Doc. 6-2 at ¶ IV). AmEx’s Answer also indicated

that copies of the Writ and Summons, underlying Judgment, Notice to Judgment Debtors, and

Requests for Hearing were delivered to Judgment Debtors on August 15, 2011 by regular

first class mail. (Id. at ¶ X). A copy of AmEx’s answer was attached to the Judgment

Creditors’ Motion for Garnishment and mailed to Judgment Debtors on August 17, 2011.

(Doc. 6 at 2). 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money is a writ of execution, unless

the court directs otherwise. FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1). Generally, a federal writ of execution

“must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Id. Arizona’s

statutory scheme regarding garnishment of monies or property is located at Arizona Revised

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 1570-1597. 

“A party who has an objection to the writ of garnishment, the answer of the garnishee

or the amount held by the garnishee or a party claiming an exemption for garnishment may,

not later than ten days after the receipt of the answer, file a written objection and request for

hearing.” ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 12-1580(A) (2011). “[I]f the answer shows that the

garnishee was indebted to the judgment debtor at the time of service of the writ, and no

objection to the writ or answer is timely filed, on application by the judgment creditor the

court shall enter judgment on the writ against garnishee for the amount of the nonexempt

monies of the judgment debtor owed or held by the garnishee at the time of the service of the

writ.” Id. at § 12-1584(A). Under Arizona’s garnishment statute, a presumption exists “that

a document has been received five days after it is mailed.” Id. at § 12-597(A). 

III. ANALYSIS

Judgment Creditors have properly complied with Arizona’s garnishment statutes

regarding the Writ of Garnishment of nonearnings. Judgment Debtors presumptively

Case 2:11-mc-00081-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

received notice of the Writ of Garnishment and the Motion for Garnishment Judgment.

Judgment Debtors have not filed an objection to the writ or garnishment or the Motion for

Garnishment Judgment. AmEx has not requested a reimbursement fee for its costs incurred

in preparing its answer.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment Creditors’ Motion for Garnishment Judgment (Doc.

6) is granted.

Judgment Creditors Essex Music, Inc, Sony/ATV Harmony, Panther Music Corp.,

WB Music Corp., and Chappell & Co., Inc. shall have judgment against Garnishee American

Express TRS, Inc. from the amount disclosed in American Express TRS, Inc.’s Answer in

Garnishment as to Judgment Debtors Sonora Claremont, Inc. and Roberto Flores in the

amount of $158.44. 

American Express TRS, Inc. shall remit the sum of $158.44 to Judgment Creditors

through their attorney, Peter J. Rathwell, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., One Arizona Center, 400

East Van Buren, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202. 

DATED this 10th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-mc-00081-JAT Document 9 Filed 01/10/12 Page 3 of 3