Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-mc-80230/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-mc-80230-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond J. Masten
Defendant
Premiere Sedan & Limousine Service, Inc.
Garnishee
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

The Defendant did not appear at the date and time of the hearing. The Defendant apparently

came to the courthouse after the hearing had concluded.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

RAYMOND J. MASTEN,

Defendant(s).

PREMIERE SEDAN & LIMOUSINE

SERVICE, INC.,

Garnishee.

___________________________________/

No. C 10-80230 CRB (JCS)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE

WRIT OF EARNINGS GARNISHMENT

[Docket No. 10]

I. INTRODUCTION

The above matter was referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation on

Defendant’s Objection to a Writ of Earnings Garnishment. A hearing on the matter was held on

December 10, 2010, at which counsel for Plaintiff appeared. The Defendant did not appear at the

hearing.1

 Having considered the arguments and considered the briefs submitted, the Court

recommends that the Defendant’s objections be OVERRULED. 

II. BACKGROUND

On September 1997, a judgment of conviction was entered in the United States District Court

for the Central District of Illinois. Defendant Raymond Masten was convicted of three counts of

mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S. § 1341, and two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a)(a)(A)(i). He was committed to the Bureau of Prisons to serve a term of sixty

months, followed by a three year term of supervised release.

Case 3:10-mc-80230 Document 15 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On August 10, 2010, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois 

granted the United States’ request for a Writ of Continuing Earnings Garnishment against Defendant

Raymond Masten. Upon the court’s finding that the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 3205 had

been satisfied, the Honorable Joe B. McDade granted the Writ. Specifically, the district court found

that there was a court judgment against Raymond Masten in the amount of $1,449,961.00, consisting

of a special assessment in the amount of $250.00 and an order of restitution in the amount of

$1,449,711.00. As of August 23, 2010, the outstanding balance was $1,185,744.26. In the Clerk’s

Notice providing Defendant with notice of the post-judgment Continuing Earnings Garnishment, the

court explained that “federal law limits earnings garnishments to the lessor of 25% of the disposable

earnings (total earnings minus legally required deductions) or the amount by which disposable

earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum wage ($7.25 per hour x 30 $217.50 per week).” The

notice also provided Defendant Masten with the opportunity to object to the court order granting the

earnings garnishment. On September 13, 2010, Raymond Masten filed an objection to the earnings

garnishment and requested a hearing. At the Defendant’s request, the case was transferred to the

Northern District of California on September 16, 2010. The case was subsequently referred to the

undersigned for a report and recommendation. This Court issued a briefing schedule and set a

hearing on the Defendant’s objections.

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Defendant’s Objections

In his objection, the Defendant does not argue that his earnings are exempt from

garnishment, nor does he dispute that he owes the restitution amount as alleged by the United States

and as set forth in the court order from the district court in Illinois. Rather, Defendant objects to the

garnishment on the grounds that he “is in poor health, having diabetes, heart problems, sleep apnea

and high blood pressure.” See Docket No. 10 (Defendant’s Response to Post-Judgment Earnings

Garnishment at 1). Defendant explains that he cannot afford health insurance and has over $28,000

in outstanding medical bills. He states that he requires his modest income for his medical debts, and

in order to purchase necessary medications due to his myriad health problems. Id. Defendant

indicates that he earns approximately $25,000 (although not explicitly stated, it appears that this is

his annual income). Id. Defendant states that of that amount, $12,000 are wages and the remainder

Case 3:10-mc-80230 Document 15 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

are tips. Id. Defendant also argues that if his employer is notified that he is a felon, he might lose

his job. Id.

The United States responds that Defendant’s employer and garnishee, Premier Sedan &

Limousine Service responded to the writ on November 5, 2010. See United States’ Response to

Defendant’s Objections, Exhibit A (“As of 10-15-10, Garnishee has withheld $217.50 and will

continue to withhold 25% of non-exempt disposable earnings bi-monthly until further instructed.”). 

The United States points out that Defendant’s employer is prohibited under federal law from

terminating Defendant’s employment because of the garnishment order. United States’ Response to

Defendant’s Objections at 2, citing 15 U.S.C. 1674. 

With respect to the Defendant’s arguments regarding his medical bills, the United States

argues that Defendant should be required to pay the maximum permitted under the earnings

garnishment statute, or 25% of his earnings, and not “put his own financial well-being above that of

his victims” and that further, this Court should “balance any equities in favor of a criminal’s victims

rather than the criminal himself.” Id.

B. Legal Standard

The United States asks this Court to continue the Illinois district court’s order permitting

garnishment of 25% of the Defendant’s disposable wages, relying on the provisions of the Federal

Debt Collection Procedures Act (“FDCPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3205(a) et seq., which allows courts to

garnish up to 25% of nonexempt disposable earnings in order to repay an outstanding debt. Several

courts have explained that 25% is the maximum figure, and not a mandatory amount. See e.g.,

United States v. George, 144 F.Supp.2d 161, 165 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (“. . . nothing in the FDCPA

states that 25% of nonexempt disposable income is the mandatory amount of any federal

garnishment under the FDCPA; rather, all the pertinent statutory language indicates that 25% is a

maximum figure.”); United States v. Kaye, 93 F.Supp.2d 196, 198 (D. Conn. 2000) (finding in

context of garnishment for purposes of restitution that court has the ability under 28 U.S.C. § 3013

to consider circumstances of individual defendant and award federal garnishment of nonexempt

disposable earnings of less than 25%). Thus, the Court concludes that it has the discretion under 28

Case 3:10-mc-80230 Document 15 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Under § 3013, the court is authorized to deny, limit, condition, regulate, extend or modify “the

use of any enforcement procedure under this chapter [i.e., Chapter 176 of Title 28, in part pertinent to

garnishments to collect judgments].”

4

U.S.C. § 30132 and the cases cited above to consider the individual Defendant and his circumstances

when determining the amount of the earnings garnishment that is appropriate in this case.

C. Application of the Law to the Facts of This Case

The Court finds that the maximum amount of earnings garnishment, 25%, is justified under

the circumstances of this case. First, although the Defendant argues that he has significant

outstanding medical debts and ongoing medical expenses due to numerous health problems, he has

failed to provide the Court with any detailed information to substantiate this claim. For example, the

Defendant has provided no details regarding his medical expenses and outstanding debts, nor has he

provided the Court with any information regarding his assets. Second, the Court rejects the

Defendant’s argument that no earnings garnishment order should be issued based upon his concern

that he will lose his job once his employer learns that he has a criminal record. The Defendant’s

employer has been garnishing his wages since October 15, 2010, and there is no indication that

Defendant has lost his job, or will lose it as a result of the earnings garnishment. Accordingly, the

Court does not find it appropriate under § 3013 to modify the amount withheld in this case. The

garnishment order should remain in effect unchanged.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the Defendant’s objections should be

OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011

___________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-mc-80230 Document 15 Filed 01/03/11 Page 4 of 4