FTC v. NBC, et al

Filing 1595

ORDER granting 1593 Motion to Expedite; denying 1589 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 1590 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/27/2014. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 89-1740

NATIONAL BUSINESS
CONSULTANTS ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion1 by defendant-debtor, Robert Namer, for reconsideration of this
Court’s final disposition order of garnishment.2 The basis for Namer’s request is a concurrently filed
motion3 to stay by Namer, which in turn is premised on the Court’s directive4 that the government
submit a supplemental affidavit. Namer has filed a motion5 for expedited consideration of both the
motion to reconsider and the motion to stay.
The Court finds both the motion for reconsideration and the motion to stay entirely
unconvincing. In its directive, the Court expressly stated that, while “the record would benefit from
. . . an affidavit relative to Namer’s total debt, . . . the Court finds unpersuasive Namer’s arguments
that [the balance set forth by the government] is incorrect.”6 Accordingly, to the extent that the
motions are premised on the allegation that the affidavit is required to justify the Court’s ruling, the
motions must be denied. Moreover, to the extent that Namer seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 3205(9), that statute provides for an annual accounting on existing writs of garnishment. See id.
(“While a writ of garnishment is in effect under this section, the United States shall give an annual
1

R. Doc. No. 1589.
R. Doc. No. 1585.
3
R. Doc. No. 1590.
4
R. Doc. No. 1584.
5
R. Doc. No. 1593.
6
R. Doc. No. 1584, at 1-2 & 2 n.7.
2

accounting on the garnishment to the judgment debtor and the garnishee.”). Namer’s request for an
accounting as to existing writs of garnishment is distinct from Namer’s opposition to the issuance
of new writs of garnishment. Finally, the amount7 at issue relative to the final disposition order of
garnishment would be owed even under Namer’s approximations8 of his outstanding debt.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to expedite is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration and the motion to stay
are DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 27, 2014.

_____________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

R. Doc. No. 1529.
R. Doc. No. 1509-1, at 2 & n.1.

8