USA v. Pellom
Filing
14
ORDER DEEMING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT WITHDRAWN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 3/6/2015 (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2015)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 99-cv-00402-MAG (JSC)
Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9
LEO PELLOM,
Defendant.
ORDER DEEMING APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING
GARNISHMENT WITHDRAWN
Re: Dkt. No. 8
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
In 1999, Plaintiff the United States of America brought an action to collect a student loan
12
debt from Defendant Leo Pellom. Mr. Pellom did not respond and default judgment was entered
13
against him on May 11, 1999 in the amount of $7,092.46. Nearly 16 years later, the United States
14
filed the now pending Ex Parte Motion for Writ of Continuing Garnishment seeking an order
15
authorizing garnishment of Mr. Pellom’s earnings from the Pacific Maritime Association. (Dkt.
16
No. 8.) On February 13, 2015, the Court issued an Order requesting supplemental briefing
17
regarding the application. (Dkt. No. 12.) The United States has filed its response. (Dkt. No. 13.)
18
Because the government’s response indicates that the application should be withdrawn as it
19
failed to properly serve Mr. Pellom at an accurate address, the application is hereby deemed
20
WITHDRAWN, or alternatively, DENIED for failure to properly identify Mr. Pellom’s last
21
known address. If the United States refiles the application, its renewed application should address
22
the issues raised in the February 13, 2015 Order and ensure proper service at Mr. Pellom’s last
23
known address.
24
The Order disposes of Docket No. 8.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: March 6, 2015
______________________________________
Jacqueline Scott Corley
United States Magistrate Judge
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?