Brinskele v. The United States
Filing
36
ORDER Setting SHOW CAUSE Hearing for Garnishee Vir2us, Inc. Hearing set for 4/10/2014 11:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 04/03/2014. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
EDWARD A. BRINSKELE,
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. C-13-MISC-80094 JSW (DMR)
ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE
HEARING
v.
14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
15
Defendant.
___________________________________/
16
17
On April 30, 2013, the United States registered and filed in this Court a judgment against
18
Plaintiff and Judgment Debtor Edward A. Brinskele that was entered by the United States Court of
19
Federal Claims in September 2009. [Docket No. 1 (Judgment).] On October 24, 2013, the Clerk
20
issued a writ of garnishment to Vir2us, Inc. (“Vir2us”) as Garnishee for the purpose of garnishing
21
property in which Brinskele has a substantial interest to satisfy the judgment. [Docket No. 13 (Writ
22
of Garnishment).] Vir2us’s answer to the writ was due on November 12, 2013. (Yang-Green Decl,
23
Nov. 22, 2013, ¶ 3.) It failed to answer, and the United States moved for an Order to Show Cause
24
directed to Vir2us on November 22, 2013, seeking an order requiring Vir2us to appear before the
25
court to answer the writ. [Docket No. 16.] The court granted the United States’s motion for an
26
Order to Show Cause and set a hearing on January 23, 2014 for Vir2us to appear and show cause
27
why it failed to comply with the writ of garnishment and why the court should not enter judgment
28
against Vir2us in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 3205(b)(6). [Docket No. 19.]
1
The court held a hearing on January 23, 2014. Vir2us failed to appear through counsel.
2
Instead, Brinskele appeared and attempted to challenge service of the writ of garnishment on Vir2us.
3
Given Brinskele’s representations that Vir2us was in the process of retaining counsel in connection
4
with this matter, the court did not hold the order to show cause hearing and instead ordered Vir2us to
5
file a notice of appearance by counsel by January 27, 2014. [Docket No. 22 (Minute Order).] No
6
notice of appearance was filed on behalf of Vir2us by the deadline, and on February 12, 2014, the
7
United States filed a motion for money judgment and order compelling answer against Vir2us on the
8
grounds that Vir2us failed to appear and show good cause why it failed to comply with the writ on
9
January 23, 2014.1 [Docket No. 25.] However, as noted, the court did not hold the order to show
cause hearing on that date. Therefore, the court will give Garnishee Vir2us one more
11
opportunity to appear before this court and show cause why it failed to comply with the writ of
12
garnishment and why the court should not enter judgment against Vir2us. On April 10, 2014
13
at 11:00 a.m., at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612 (for
14
courtroom number and floor information, please check the Court’s on-line calendar at
15
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov (click “Calendars - Judges’ Weekly Calendars” link, then select Judge
16
Ryu’s calendar)), Garnishee Vir2us shall appear before this court and 1) show cause, if any, why it
17
failed to comply with the writ of garnishment issued on October 24, 2013 and why the court should
18
not enter judgment against Garnishee Vir2us for the value of Judgment Debtor Edward Brinskele’s
19
nonexempt interest in property that was and is within the Garnishee’s custody, control or possession
20
as of October 28, 2013, and 2) answer the writ of garnishment.
RT
25
H
DONNA M. RYU
ER
United States Magistrate Judge
N
26
F
D IS T IC T O
R
27
1
28
u
a M. Ry
onn
Judge D
R NIA
Dated: April 3, 2014
NO
24
D
RDERE
FO
23
OO
IT IS S
LI
IT IS SO ORDERED.
A
22
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
21
UNIT
ED
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
C
On February 20, 2014, an attorney filed an “Amended Appearance of Counsel” for “Vir2us
Inc., in place and stead of Edward A. Brinskele.” [Docket No. 28.]
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?