Procom Supply, Inc. v. Langner, 1:13-cv-2665. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20181003h49
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2018
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 37] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On April 24, 2014, the Court entered default judgment against each of the Defendants in this matter. 1 On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed—without a corresponding motion or argument—a Proposed Writ of Continuing Garnishment for Defendant Aharon Mann's wages earned from a corporation in Lakewood, Colorado. 2 Based on the face of the proposed writ, the Court seriously doubts that it has jurisdiction over the Colorado
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 37] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . On April 24, 2014, the Court entered default judgment against each of the Defendants in this matter. 1 On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed—without a corresponding motion or argument—a Proposed Writ of Continuing Garnishment for Defendant Aharon Mann's wages earned from a corporation in Lakewood, Colorado. 2 Based on the face of the proposed writ, the Court seriously doubts that it has jurisdiction over the Colorado e..
More
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 37]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
On April 24, 2014, the Court entered default judgment against each of the Defendants in this matter.1 On September 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed—without a corresponding motion or argument—a Proposed Writ of Continuing Garnishment for Defendant Aharon Mann's wages earned from a corporation in Lakewood, Colorado.2
Based on the face of the proposed writ, the Court seriously doubts that it has jurisdiction over the Colorado employer and, therefore, will deny Plaintiff's request.3 If Plaintiff believes the Court has jurisdiction over the Colorado employer, it can file a motion with the Court that shows jurisdiction. Alternatively, Plaintiff could register the Court's original judgment with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado4 and seek the writ there.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's requested writ of garnishment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 21.
2. Doc. 37.
3. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137-38 (2014) (holding that, generally, a corporation is only subject to the general jurisdiction of the courts of the state where it is incorporated or principally conducts business).
4. 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
Source: Leagle
