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ORDER DEEMING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT WITHDRAWN.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)

Download PDF
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 ORDER DEEMING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT WITHDRAWN Re: Dkt.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 No. 13.) 18 Because the government’s response indicates that the application should be withdrawn as it 19 failed to properly serve Mr. Pellom at an accurate address, the application is hereby deemed 20 WITHDRAWN, or alternatively, DENIED for failure to properly identify Mr.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?