Ela v. Orange County Sheriff's Office et al
Filing
254
ORDER granting 252 Motion for Writ of Garnishment. See Order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick on 4/21/2023. (TBS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
THERESA ANN ELA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:13-cv-491-JA-DCI
KATHLEEN DESTEFANO, JERRY L.
DEMINGS, JOHN DOES 1-30, JANE
DOES 1-30 and ORANGE COUNTY,
SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the
following motion:
MOTION:
Motion for Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 252)
FILED:
March 15, 2023
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Theresa Ann Ela (Plaintiff) sued Kathleen Ela aka Kathleen Destefano (Defendant Ela), an
Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy, for improperly accessing and viewing her private information
on Florida driver’s license databases. Following a jury trial, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment as a matter of law and held Defendant liable under the Driver’s Privacy Protection
Act. The Court awarded liquidated damages and attorney fees.
On March 8, 2016, the Court entered the Second Amended Judgment providing, in relevant
part, that Plaintiff recover $22,106.44 from Defendant.1 Plaintiff appealed, and the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Court “did not abuse its discretion in shaping a damages
award appropriate for the facts of this case” but found the Court erred in calculating the attorney
fee award. Doc. 223. The case was remanded, and Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for costs to
include reasonable attorney fees. Doc. 224. By Order dated March 27, 2018, the Court adopted a
report and recommendation and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $24,085.70 and
litigation expenses and costs in the amount of $4,277.44. Doc. 234 at 4. The Court directed the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in that amount. Id. Judgment was entered.
Doc. 235.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Writ of Garnishment. Doc. 252
(the Motion).2 Plaintiff moves for a writ of garnishment against Defendant Ela’s salary or wages
pursuant to Florida Statute section 77.0305. Id. Plaintiff “suggest[s] that the GARNISHEE,
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, is the EMPLOYER of the DEFENDANT, KATHLEEN
D. ELA, and has in his hands, possession, or control salary or wages which are NOT EXEMPT
under the laws of Florida.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has attached a Continuing Writ of Garnishment (For
Salary or Wages). Doc. 252-1 (Continuing Writ). The Continuing Writ identifies the “Orange
County Sheriff Office” as garnishee (the Garnishee) and states that “[t]he total amount of the final
1
The amount includes $15,379 for attorney fees, $4,227.44 in costs, and $2,500 in liquidated
damages. Doc. 223 at 4.
2
The Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for writ of garnishment pursuant to Local Rule
2.02(b)(2) and second motion for writ of garnishment pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(a). Docs. 242,
250.
-2-
judgment outstanding as set out in the Plaintiff’s motion is $22,106.44.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff has also
attached to the Motion a “NOTICE Federal Wage Garnishment Law.” Id. at 3-9.
In satisfaction of the debt, Plaintiff may petition the Court for a continuing writ of
garnishment issued to Defendant Ela’s employer and against salary or wages. Commc’n Ctr, Inc.
v. Komatsu., 2008 WL 114920, at *1 (citing FLA. STAT. § 77.0305). The Florida Statute provides
in part that,
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, if salary or wages are to be
garnished to satisfy a judgment, the court shall issue a continuing writ of
garnishment to the judgment debtor’s employer which provides for the periodic
payment of a portion of the salary or wages of the judgment debtor as the salary or
wages become due until the judgment is satisfied or until otherwise provided by
court order.
Fla. Stat. § 77.0305. Plaintiff requests garnishment of no more than 25% of Defendant Ela’s
disposable earnings. Doc. 252-1 at 1. This percentage is consistent with the provisions of
the Consumer Credit Protection Act. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1671-1673. Therefore, the Motion is due
to be granted.
Further, continuing writs of garnishment on wages are subject to the federal Consumer
Credit Protection Act as well as various state statutory exemptions. See Fla. Stat. § 222.11. As
the debtor, Defendant Ela carries the burden of establishing entitlement to an exemption. Brandt
v. Magnificent Quality Florals Corp., 2013 WL 1289259, at * (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2013) (citing In
re: Parker, 147 B.R. 810, 812 (M.D. Fla. 1992)). In order to meet this burden, Florida law requires
that Defendant Ela be given notice that the writ of garnishment has been issued. See Fla. Stat. §
77.041.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:
1. the Motion (Doc. 252) is GRANTED;
2. the Clerk of Court is directed to issue the Continuing Writ (Doc. 252-1);
-3-
3. the Clerk of Court is directed to attach to the Continuing Writ a notice to Defendant
Ela that complies with Fla. Stat. § 77.041;
4. upon the Clerk of Court’s issuance of the Continuing Writ, Plaintiff is directed to mail
copies of the Continuing Writ, a copy of the Motion requesting the writ (Doc. 252),
and the notice to Defendant Ela’s last known address, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 77.041(2).
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 21, 2023.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-4-
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?