Rice v. Interfood, Inc. et al

Filing 214

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Verified Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is granted. A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/7/22. (HMA)

Case: 4:13-cv-01171-HEA Doc. #: 214 Filed: 11/07/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LARRY RICE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERFOOD, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
DF INGREDIENTS, INC.,
Garnishee/Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV1171 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants/Counterclaimant
Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors’ Verified Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
against DF Ingredients, Inc., [Doc. No. 198]. On October 20, 2022, the Court
entered its show cause order to DF Ingredients to show cause why the Motion for
Entry of Default Judgment should not be entered. On October 31, 2022, Michael
Husmann, President of DF Ingredients filed a “Reply” to the show cause order
indicating that he knew nothing about the case and that he did not handle Wage
garnishments. He also indicated he could not represent the company.
Garnishee/Respondent DF Ingredients, Inc. has failed to show cause why the

Case: 4:13-cv-01171-HEA Doc. #: 214 Filed: 11/07/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 2016

default judgment should not be entered.
On June 22, 2017, this Court entered Judgment in favor of defendants and
against plaintiff on all counts in this matter. Defendants were awarded $78,496.74
in attorneys’ fees.
Defendants had plaintiff’s employer DF Ingredients, Inc. served with a writ
of execution and interrogatories for a garnishment against plaintiff’s wages on
August 6, 2018. DF Ingredients, Inc. did not respond to the interrogatories, nor did
it present any basis for this failure.
Defendants have verified for the Court that on January 19, 2020, defendants
made a good faith attempt to resolve this matter. No funds have been recovered
from any source to be credited towards the judgment.
Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the Court
directs otherwise. The procedure on execution…must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is located…
R.S.Mo § 525.140 provides:
Upon the filing of the interrogatories aforesaid, the garnishee shall exhibit
and file his answer thereto, on oath, within six days thereafter, if the term
shall so long continue, if not, during such term, unless for good cause shown
the court shall order otherwise. In default of such answer, the plaintiff may
take judgment by default against him, or the court may, upon motion,
compel him to answer by attachment of his body; provided, in all cases
where the garnishee is a corporation and fails to answer as above provided,
the court may, upon motion, compel said corporation to answer by attaching
the body of the president, secretary, treasurer, auditor, paymaster or deputy
paymaster of such corporation, in which case the said corporation shall be

Case: 4:13-cv-01171-HEA Doc. #: 214 Filed: 11/07/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 2017

liable for all the costs accruing by reason of such attachment.
Defendants have verified that they attempted to resolve the issue with DF
Ingredients prior to filing their motion on January 19, 2022 and again on February
16, 2022. DF Ingredients, Inc. has failed to comply with the Court’s orders
contained in the garnishment pleadings.
Generally, a plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defaulting
garnishee in the amount of plaintiff’s non-exempt wages and property garnishee is
holding or should have been withholding since the writ was executed. Northwest
Professional Condominium Ass’n v. Kayembe, 190 S.W.3d 447 (Mo.App.E.D.
2006). Defendants are entitled to judgment, however, the amount of the judgment
is unascertainable because of Garnishee’s failure to respond to the interrogatories.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Verified Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment is granted.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Opinion is entered this same
date.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2022.

______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE