Arriaga v. Jess Enterprises, LLC et al

Filing 93

ORDER granting 71 Motion To Dissolve Writ of Garnishment ; denying 74 Motion for Hearing; 78 Amended Motion for Alternative Security; 79 Motion To Disburse Garnished Funds. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/2/2014) (aaa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
PEDRO GARCIA ARRIAGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESS ENTERPRISES; SEJ
PROPERTIES, L.P.; CALIFCO, LLC;
AND ELIAS SHOKRIAN,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-94-L

ORDER
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 71), filed
March 21, 2014; Defendants’ Motion to Stay Garnishment Proceedings and Request for Emergency
Hearing (Doc. 74), filed March 26, 2014; Defendants’ Amended Opposed Motion for Permission
to File Irrevocable Letter of Credit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond and Stay of Garnishment
Proceedings (Doc. 78), filed March 28, 2014; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Disburse Garnished Funds
(Doc. 79), filed March 31, 2014. The postjudgment motions were referred to Magistrate Judge
Renee Harris Toliver, who entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on April 10, 2014, recommending that the court: grant Defendants’
Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 71); deny Defendants’ Motion to Stay Garnishment
Proceedings and Request for Emergency Hearing (Doc. 74); deny Defendants’ Amended Opposed
Motion for Permission to File Irrevocable Letter of Credit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond and Stay of
Garnishment Proceedings (Doc. 78); and deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Disburse Garnished Funds (Doc.
79). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on April 24, 2014, to which Defendants responded.

Order – Page 1

Having reviewed the motions, file, record in this case, Report, Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report, and Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections, the court determines that
the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court,
and overrules Plaintiff’s objections. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve
Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 71); denies Defendants’ Motion to Stay Garnishment Proceedings and
Request for Emergency Hearing (Doc. 74); denies Defendants’ Amended Opposed Motion for
Permission to File Irrevocable Letter of Credit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond and Stay of Garnishment
Proceedings (Doc. 78); and denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Disburse Garnished Funds (Doc. 79).
It is so ordered this 2nd day of May, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2