USA v. Spathis

Filing 19

ORDER to Show Cause re 17 Ex Parte MOTION application for order of continuing garnishment. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/03/2016. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

7
8
9

Case No. 99-cv-00842-PJH

Plaintiff,

6
v.

DIMITRIOS H. SPATHIS,
Defendant.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 17

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the court is plaintiff’s application for an order of continuing garnishment.

13

Dkt. 17. This matter regards the United States’ efforts to collect on the defaulted student

14

loan debt of pro se defendant Dimitrios H. Spathis. In a prior order, this court granted

15

plaintiff’s motion for a writ of garnishment. Dkt. 14. The writ was to be served on Spathis

16

and the garnishee, The Container Store.

17

The Container Store answered and objected to the writ. Dkt. 16. In particular, the

18

garnishee argued that Spathis works only part time, and his net biweekly wages are too

19

low to be garnished. The Container Store further stated that garnishment “has been

20

applied to” Spathis’s record, and that wages will be “forwarded if earnings are enough to

21

withhold.” Id. at 9. Although it was not cited, the basis for the objection would appear to

22

be 29 C.F.R. § 870.10(a). See U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Fact

23

Sheet #30: The Federal Wage Garnishment Law.

24

Spathis himself has not objected or otherwise responded to the writ. Although the

25

application declares that service of the writ was made on the debtor on August 4, 2016,

26

Dkt. 17 ¶ 6, no separate certificate of service was filed with the court. See 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 3205(c)(3) (“The United States shall serve the garnishee and the judgment debtor with

28

a copy of the writ of garnishment and shall certify to the court that this service was

1

made.”). The court is thus unable to determine whether service was sent to Mr. Spathis’s

2

last known address (in Las Vegas) or to the updated address (in Vacaville, California)

3

that was more recently provided by The Container Store. See Dkt. 16 at 5.

4

Plaintiff is thus ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the application should not be

5

denied given the garnishee’s representation that Spathis’s wages are too low to be

6

garnished. Plaintiff’s supplemental filing shall also indicate how the writ of garnishment

7

was served upon the defendant, and which address was used for service. A

8

supplemental brief addressing these two matters shall be filed with the court within 21

9

days of this order.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2016

12
13
14

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2