Dittmar v. Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's 32 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Ms. Dittmar's 30 Motion for Garnishment Judgment against Garnishee Wells Fargo, N.A., in the amount of $14,503.92. FURTHER ORDERED Awarding Garnishee Wells Fargo $75.00 against the Judgment Debtor Thunderbird Collection's funds as costs for preparing the Answer of the Garnishee. FURTHER ORDERED that the amounts retained by Garnishee Wells Fargo, N.A., pursuant to the writ of garnishment and this Order are to be immediately paid upon receipt of this Order to Floyd W. Bybee, as attorney for the Judgment Creditor. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/25/08. (SAT)

Download PDF
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 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) Judgment Creditor, ) ) vs. ) ) Thunderbird Collection Specialists, Inc., ) ) ) Judgment Debtor, ) ) ) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ) ) Garnishee. ) ) Madeline Dittmar, No. CV 06-1980-PHX-JAT ORDER On August 11, 2008, Judgment Creditor Madeline Dittmar moved for Garnishment Judgment (Doc. #30). In its Verified Answer (Doc. #29), Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., indicated that at the time the writ of garnishment was served, Wells Fargo owed the Judgment Debtor Thunderbird Collection the total sum of $124,773.30, and that Wells Fargo had withheld $15,954.31 of that amount pursuant to the Writ of Garnishment (Doc. #28). Judgment Debtor Thunderbird Collection did not file an objection to the Writ of Garnishment or Motion for Garnishment Judgment. On September 4, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")(Doc. #32) recommending that the Court enter a Judgment on Garnishment against Garnishee Wells Fargo in the total sum of $14,503.92. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Wells Fargo be awarded the sum of $75.00 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 against the Judgment Debtor's funds to cover the costs of preparing the Answer of the Garnishee. Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #32) is ACCEPTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Ms. Dittmar's Motion for Garnishment Judgment (Doc. #30) against Garnishee Wells Fargo, N.A., in the amount of $14,503.92. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Awarding Garnishee Wells Fargo $75.00 against the Judgment Debtor Thunderbird Collection's funds as costs for preparing the Answer of the Garnishee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amounts retained by Garnishee Wells Fargo, N.A., pursuant to the writ of garnishment and this Order are to be immediately paid upon receipt of this Order to Floyd W. Bybee, as attorney for the Judgment Creditor, at the Law Office of Floyd W. Bybee, PLLC, 4445 E. Holmes Ave., Ste. 107, Mesa, AZ 85206-5530. DATED this 25th day of September, 2008. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?