USA v. Chapman

Filing 45

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 39 Motion for Writ of Garnishment (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 92-cv-02500-WDB (JSC)

Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11

MARK A. CHAPMAN,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF CONTINUING
GARNISHMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 39

12
13
14

In 1992, Plaintiff the United States of America brought an action to collect a student loan

15

debt from Defendant Mark Chapman. Default judgment was entered against Mr. Chapman on

16

March 10, 1993 in the amount of $2,481.60. Nearly 22 years later, the United States filed the now

17

pending Ex Parte Motion for Writ of Continuing Garnishment seeking an order authorizing

18

garnishment of Mr. Chapman’s earnings from the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

19

Company. (Dkt. No. 39.) On February 13, 2015, the Court issued an Order requesting

20

supplemental briefing regarding the application. (Dkt. No. 42.) The United States has filed its

21

response. (Dkt. No. 43.) Because the Court’s concerns regarding service remain, the Court

22

hereby DENIES the Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment without prejudice.

23

In the Court’s Order requesting supplemental briefing, the Court requested additional

24

information regarding several matters including (1) what happened with the previous writ of

25

garnishment issued by Judge James on December 2, 2014 (Dkt. No. 35), and (2) how the United

26

States identified Mr. Chapman’s last known address. The United States’ response to both these

27

queries is problematic.

28

First, with respect to the prior writ of garnishment, the supplemental brief states that “[t]he

1

Garnishee filed an Answer to the Writ (Answer) on 12/8/14, docket #36.” Docket entry 36,

2

however, is the writ of continuing garnishment issued by the Court. The docket does not reflect

3

that the garnishee ever filed an answer in this case; instead, the docket indicates that the writ of

4

garnishment was returned unexecuted. (Dkt. No. 38.) The document filed at docket entry 38 is

5

the identical document as that issued by the Court at docket entry 36 including the blank answer of

6

the garnishee form. The Court could not locate any docket entry which was completed either by

7

State Farm or by a Tisha Leischner as referenced in the United States’ filing.
Second, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2) requires service to be made (a) personally;

8
9

(b) “at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and
discretion who resides there;” or (c) by delivering it to an authorized agent. 1 The United States

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

was thus obligated to serve Mr. Chapman at his residence and not his business address. In its

12

supplemental filing, the United States indicates that it identified Mr. Chapman’s last known

13

address by (1) going online and discovering that Mr. Chapman was an automobile insurance agent

14

for State Farm, (2) relying on Tisha Leischner’s alleged representation that agents work out of

15

their home, and (3) submitting a Postal Tracer to the United States Post Office using the address

16

that the government found on Mr. Chapman’s online advertisement. (Dkt. No. 43 at 2:3-23.) A

17

review of GoogleMaps indicates that the address 250 E. Hamilton Ave. Suite B, Campbell,

18

California is an office complex; it is thus unlikely that it is Mr. Chapman’s residential address.

19

Further, for unknown reasons, the United States did not use the TransUnion Risk and Alternative

20

Data Solotions, Inc.’s public record search to locate Mr. Chapman’s address which it generally

21

uses to identify a debtor’s last known address. Under these circumstances, the United States has

22

made inadequate efforts to identify Mr. Chapman’s last known address to effectuate proper

23

service.
The Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment is therefore DENIED without

24
25

prejudice. If the United States refiles the application, it shall address the issues raised in this

26

Order and the February 13, 2015 Order.

27
1

28

Service may also be made in accordance with state law; under California law, service must be
made personally or on an authorized agent. See Cal. Civ. P. Code 416.90.
2

1

This Order disposes of Docket No. 39.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: March 6, 2015
______________________________________
Jacqueline Scott Corley
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3