Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Ravin Hotels & Investments, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion for Writ of Garnishment; granting 12 Motion for Writ of Garnishment; granting 13 Motion for Writ of Garnishment; granting 14 Motion for Writ of Garnishment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 2/26/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
POSER INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:13-mc-18-Orl-36TBS

RAVIN HOTELS & INVESTMENTS, LLC,
GIRDHARI SANKAR and JEYASELVAN
KANAGASABAPATHY,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without a hearing on the following motions:
•

Judgment Creditor’s Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Continuing Writ of
Garnishment Against Sun Hospitality Inn, LLC (Doc. 11);

•

Judgment Creditor’s Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Continuing Writ of
Garnishment Against JLM Hotels, LLC D/B/A Sun Inn and Suites (Doc. 12);

•

Judgment Creditor’s Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Continuing Writ of
Garnishment Against JL Hotel Management, LLC (Doc. 13); and

•

Judgment Creditor’s Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of Continuing Writ of
Garnishment Against JL Hospitality Management, LLC (Doc. 14).

In each motion, Plaintiff Poser Investments, Inc. alleges that: (1) it holds an
unsatisfied judgment totaling $457,601.14 exclusive of interest, against Defendants
Girdhari Sankar and Jeyaselvan Kanagasabapathy, jointly and severally; (2) Defendants
Girdhari Sankar and Jeyaselvan Kanagasabapathy do not have in their possession
visible property upon which levies can be made sufficient to satisfy the debt; and (3)
Plaintiff has reason to believe that the garnishee named in each motion has in its
possession or control, monies owed to Jeyaselvan Kanagasabapathy.

By rule:
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless
the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution—and
in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or
execution—must accord with the procedure of the state where
the court is located, but a federal statute governs the extent to
which it applies.
FED. R. CIV. P. 69(a)(1).
Under Florida law:
Every person or entity who has sued to recover a debt or has
recovered judgment in any court against any person or entity
has a right to a writ of garnishment, in the manner hereinafter
provided, to subject any debt due to defendant by a third
person or any debt not evidenced by a negotiable instrument
that will become due absolutely through the passage of time
only to the defendant by a third person, and any tangible or
intangible personal property of defendant in the possession or
control of a third person. The officers, agents, and employees
of any companies or corporations are third persons in regard
to the companies or corporations, and as such are subject to
garnishment after judgment against the companies or
corporations.
FLA. STAT. § 77.01.
Florida law provides for the issuance of a writ of garnishment:
After judgment has been obtained against defendant but
before the writ of garnishment is issued, the plaintiff, the
plaintiff's agent or attorney, shall file a motion (which shall not
be verified or negative defendant's exemptions) stating the
amount of the judgment. The motion may be filed and the writ
issued either before or after the return of execution.
FLA. STAT. § 77.03.
Plaintiff having complied with Rule 69(a)(1) and FLA. STAT. §§ 77.01 and 77.03, the
motions are GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ISSUE the proposed writs of
garnishment (Doc. 11 at 10; Doc. 12 at 10; Doc. 13 at 10; Doc. 14 at 10).

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 26, 2018.

Copies furnished to Counsel for Plaintiff

-3-