Watkins v. Velocity Investments LLC, 3:18-cv-10-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180418770
Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The motion to dismiss the amended complaint, N o 19, is denied. The Watkinses have, for the reasons given in N o 22, stated plausible claims. Their case's core is the continuation of the garnishment proceedings after evidence of exemption was provided. Actual injuries are alleged. The Court is somewhat skeptical about punitive damages, but we'll see what the proof shows about the intentions of Allen & Withrow and Velocity. So Ordere
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . The motion to dismiss the amended complaint, N o 19, is denied. The Watkinses have, for the reasons given in N o 22, stated plausible claims. Their case's core is the continuation of the garnishment proceedings after evidence of exemption was provided. Actual injuries are alleged. The Court is somewhat skeptical about punitive damages, but we'll see what the proof shows about the intentions of Allen & Withrow and Velocity. So Ordered..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint, No 19, is denied. The Watkinses have, for the reasons given in No 22, stated plausible claims. Their case's core is the continuation of the garnishment proceedings after evidence of exemption was provided. Actual injuries are alleged. The Court is somewhat skeptical about punitive damages, but we'll see what the proof shows about the intentions of Allen & Withrow and Velocity.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
