Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04154/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04154-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Default of Student Loan

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVEN L. COMBS, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 11-cv-04154-SLM (EDL) 

ORDER REGARDING APPLICATION 

FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING 

GARNISHMENT 

Re: Dkt. No. 16 

 In 2011, Plaintiff the United States of America brought an action to collect a student loan 

debt from Defendant Steven Combs. Default judgment was entered against Mr. Chapman on 

October 19, 2011 in the amount of $26,621.34. On May 20, 2016, the United States filed the now 

pending Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment seeking an order authorizing 

garnishment of Mr. Chapman’s earnings from the Manpowergroup. Dkt. No. 16. Because the 

Court has concerns regarding certain aspects of the application, the United States is ordered to file 

a supplemental memorandum and declaration in support of its application as set forth below. 

DISCUSSION 

 To obtain a writ of garnishment, the United States must (1) file an application for a writ of 

garnishment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 3205(b), and (2) prepare and file with the Clerk of the 

Court a notice in the form proscribed in 28 U.S.C. § 3202(b). The notice must include an 

explanation of the judgment debtor’s rights, exemptions that may apply, and the procedures 

applicable if the judgment debtor disputes the issuance of the writ. 28 U.S.C. § 3202(b). These 

procedures include the right to request a hearing before the Court within 20 days of receipt of the 

notice. Id. The Clerk shall issue the notice upon filing and the United States shall serve the notice 

Case 3:11-cv-04154-SLM Document 19 Filed 05/23/16 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 Californi

a

and copy of the application for a writ of garnishment on the judgment debtor and the garnishee. 28 

U.S.C. § 3202(c). 

 Upon receipt of an application for a writ of garnishment, the Court shall issue the writ of 

garnishment if it is satisfied that the United States has complied with the requirements of Section 

3205(b). In particular, the application must indicate: (1) the judgment debtor’s name, social 

security number, and last known address, (2) the nature and amount of the debt owed, and (3) that 

the garnishee is believed to have possession of property in which the debtor has a substantial 

nonexempt interest. 28 U.S.C. § 3305(b)(1). If the court grants the writ of garnishment, the 

United States must serve the writ on the garnishee and the judgment debtor along with (1) 

instructions “explaining the requirement that the garnishee submit a written answer to the writ,” 

and (2) “instructions to the judgment debtor for objecting to the answer of the garnishee and for 

obtaining a hearing on the objections.” 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(3). The garnishee is then required to 

answer in writing. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(3). Section 3205(c)(5) allows a defendant (judgment 

debtor) to file a request for a hearing within twenty days after receipt of the answer by the 

garnishee. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). 

 The Court needs more information to determine whether to issue the notice and writ in this 

case. This is the United States’ second request for a writ of garnishment in this action. This Court 

previously granted a writ on February 9, 2016 (Dkt. No. 12), but the docket reflects that the writ 

was returned unexecuted on May 20, 2016 (Dkt. No. 15). On the same day, the United States filed 

the now pending application for the writ, which does not address the prior application and grant of 

writ. Dkt. No. 16. The only apparent difference between the two applications is the name and 

address of the garnishee, in that the first writ sought garnishment from Addeco Employment 

Services in New York, while the pending application seeks garnishment from Manpowergroup in 

Wisconsin. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(6) provides that upon receipt of a writ of garnishment, the 

garnishee may either “answer the writ of garnishment or [ ] withhold property in accordance with 

the writ.” Thus, the Court cannot simply infer from the fact that the prior writ was returned 

unexecuted that the garnishee is not in fact withholding payment in accordance with the writ. The 

Case 3:11-cv-04154-SLM Document 19 Filed 05/23/16 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 Californi

a

United States shall supplement its request with an explanation of what happened with the prior 

writ and why a second writ is sought. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:11-cv-04154-SLM Document 19 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 3