United States of America v. Yin et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying Defendant's 24 Motion to reinstate objections to the United Statess motion to issue a continuing garnishee order to Garnishee T. Rowe Price. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: defendant via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

CASE NO. C17-1284JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REINSTATE OBJECTIONS

12
13

JOHN YIN,
Defendant,

14
15

T. ROWE PRICE,
Garnishee.

16
17

Before the court is Defendant John Yin’s motion to reinstate his objections to the

18

United States’s motion to issue a continuing garnishee order to Garnishee T. Rowe Price

19

(Mot. (Dkt. # 24)). Mr. Yin had previously filed pro se objections on September 22,

20

2017, when Mr. Yin was still represented by counsel. (See Resp. (Dkt. # 14).) Because a

21

party who is represented by counsel cannot file pro se motions, the court struck the

22

objections. (10/2/17 Order (Dkt. # 17) at 1-2.) Mr. Yin’s counsel subsequently withdrew

ORDER - 1

1

from representation (10/5/2017 Order (Dkt. # 21)), and Mr. Yin now moves to reinstate

2

his objections (see Mot.).
Meanwhile, the court denied Mr. Yin’s request for a hearing and granted the

3
4

United States’s motion to issue a continuing garnishee order. (10/16/2017 Order (Dkt.

5

# 22) at 1-2.) The court found that Mr. Yin’s request for a hearing was untimely, as it

6

was filed more than 20 days after the United States mailed notice of the garnishment

7

proceedings and T. Rowe Price had filed its answer. (Id. at 3-5.) Accordingly, on

8

October 16, 2017, the court issued a continuing garnishee order. (See Continuing

9

Garnishee Order (Dkt. # 23).)
The court denies Mr. Yin’s motion to reinstate his objections for the same reason

10
11

that it denied his request for a hearing: untimeliness. Mr. Yin had 20 days after being

12

served with the writ of garnishment to object. See 28 U.S.C. § 3202(d). He was served

13

with all required notices on June 21, 2017. (Cert. of Service (Dkt. # 5).) Thus, the 20-

14

day period to object expired on July 14, 2017.1 Mr. Yin’s objections, filed on September

15

22, 2017, are untimely. The same is true even if Mr. Yin’s objections are construed as

16

objections to T. Rowe Price’s answer. Mr. Yin likewise had 20 days after receiving T.

17

Rowe Price’s answer to lodge objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). T. Rowe Price

18

filed its answer on June 30, 2017. (Ans. (Dkt. # 6).) Thus, the 20-day period to object

19

expired on July 24, 2017.

20

//

21
1

22

This period accounts for the three days for service by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

ORDER - 2

1
2
3

Because Mr. Yin’s objections are untimely, the court DENIES Mr. Yin’s motion
to reinstate his objections (Dkt. # 24).
Dated this 20th day of October, 2017.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3