Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE OBJECTIONS JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is Defendant John Yin's motion to reinstate his objections to the United States's motion to issue a continuing garnishee order to Garnishee T. Rowe Price (Mot. (Dkt. # 24)). Mr. Yin had previously filed pro se objections on September 22, 2017, when Mr. Yin was still represented by counsel. ( See Resp. (Dkt. # 14).) Because a party who is represented by counsel cannot file pro se motions, th
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE OBJECTIONS JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court is Defendant John Yin's motion to reinstate his objections to the United States's motion to issue a continuing garnishee order to Garnishee T. Rowe Price (Mot. (Dkt. # 24)). Mr. Yin had previously filed pro se objections on September 22, 2017, when Mr. Yin was still represented by counsel. ( See Resp. (Dkt. # 14).) Because a party who is represented by counsel cannot file pro se motions, the..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINSTATE OBJECTIONS
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is Defendant John Yin's motion to reinstate his objections to the United States's motion to issue a continuing garnishee order to Garnishee T. Rowe Price (Mot. (Dkt. # 24)). Mr. Yin had previously filed pro se objections on September 22, 2017, when Mr. Yin was still represented by counsel. (See Resp. (Dkt. # 14).) Because a party who is represented by counsel cannot file pro se motions, the court struck the objections. (10/2/17 Order (Dkt. # 17) at 1-2.) Mr. Yin's counsel subsequently withdrew from representation (10/5/2017 Order (Dkt. # 21)), and Mr. Yin now moves to reinstate his objections (see Mot.).
Meanwhile, the court denied Mr. Yin's request for a hearing and granted the United States's motion to issue a continuing garnishee order. (10/16/2017 Order (Dkt. # 22) at 1-2.) The court found that Mr. Yin's request for a hearing was untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the United States mailed notice of the garnishment proceedings and T. Rowe Price had filed its answer. (Id. at 3-5.) Accordingly, on October 16, 2017, the court issued a continuing garnishee order. (See Continuing Garnishee Order (Dkt. # 23).)
The court denies Mr. Yin's motion to reinstate his objections for the same reason that it denied his request for a hearing: untimeliness. Mr. Yin had 20 days after being served with the writ of garnishment to object. See 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). He was served with all required notices on June 21, 2017. (Cert. of Service (Dkt. # 5).) Thus, the 20day period to object expired on July 14, 2017.1 Mr. Yin's objections, filed on September 22, 2017, are untimely. The same is true even if Mr. Yin's objections are construed as objections to T. Rowe Price's answer. Mr. Yin likewise had 20 days after receiving T. Rowe Price's answer to lodge objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). T. Rowe Price filed its answer on June 30, 2017. (Ans. (Dkt. # 6).) Thus, the 20-day period to object expired on July 24, 2017.
Because Mr. Yin's objections are untimely, the court DENIES Mr. Yin's motion to reinstate his objections (Dkt. # 24).
