United States of America v. Park et al
Filing
10
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ORDER signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re 8 Motion. (CDA)
1
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NO. 2:19-MC-00069-RSL
Plaintiff,
v.
(2:13-CR-00374-MJP-1)
Continuing Garnishment Order
JONATHAN PARK,
Defendant/Judgment Debtor,
and
CATHAY BANK,
Garnishee.
A Writ of Continuing Garnishment, directed to Garnishee, Cathay Bank,
has been duly issued and served upon the Garnishee. Pursuant to the Writ,
Cathay Bank filed its Form Answer on July 11, 2019, stating that at the time
23
of the service of the Writ, Defendant/Judgment Debtor Jonathan Park’s
24
spouse, Jisoo Park, was an active employee who was paid bi-weekly, and who
25
26
27
maintained interest in a company 401k plan that is in the possession,
custody or control of the Garnishee.
28
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ORDER (USA v.
Jonathan Park & Cathay Bank, Court Nos. 2:19-MC-00069-RSL
& 2:13-CR-00374-MJP-1) - 1
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
After notification of the garnishment proceeding was mailed to the
parties on or about June 20, 2019, the Defendant/Judgment Debtor and his
spouse have not requested a hearing to determine exempt property as of this
date.
6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows:
7
That the Garnishee, Cathay Bank, shall pay to the United States
8
9
10
11
District Court for the Western District of Washington, (1) the non-exempt
earnings payable to Defendant/Judgment Debtor’s spouse, Jisoo Park, upon
each period of time when Ms. Park is entitled to receive such funds, and (2)
12
the entire amount (less federal tax withholdings paid to the Internal Revenue
13
Service) of non-exempt property from any and all accounts, including the
14
company 401k plan, in the Garnishee’s possession, custody or control, in
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
which Jisoo Park maintains an interest and meets the requirements to
withdraw, or becomes eligible to withdraw, but such amount shall not exceed
the amount necessary to pay Mr. Park’s restitution balance in full; and
That the Garnishee shall continue said payments, if any, until
Defendant/Judgment Debtor Jonathan Park’s debt is paid in full or until
Jisoo Park is no longer an active employee of Garnishee and the Garnishee no
longer has possession, custody, or control of any funds due and owing to Ms.
24
Park or until further order of this Court. This includes all monies required to
25
be previously withheld by the Garnishee, in accordance with the Writ of
26
Continuing Garnishment;
27
28
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ORDER (USA v.
Jonathan Park & Cathay Bank, Court Nos. 2:19-MC-00069-RSL
& 2:13-CR-00374-MJP-1) - 2
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-553-7970
1
2
3
4
5
That such payment(s) shall be applied to Defendant/Judgment Debtor
Jonathan Park’s outstanding restitution obligation, by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington; and
That the payments shall be made out to the United States District
6
Court, Western District of Washington, referencing Case Nos. 2:13-CR-00374-
7
MJP-1 and 2:19-MC-00069-RSL, and to deliver such payment either
8
personally or by First Class Mail to:
9
10
11
12
13
United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Attn: Financial Clerk – Lobby Level
700 Stewart Street
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2019.
AS. LASNIK
JUDGE ROBERT
14
15
United States District Court Judge
16
17
Presented by:
18
19
20
s/ Kyle A. Forsyth
KYLE A. FORSYTH, WSBA #34609
Assistant United States Attorney
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ORDER (USA v.
Jonathan Park & Cathay Bank, Court Nos. 2:19-MC-00069-RSL
& 2:13-CR-00374-MJP-1) - 3
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WA 98101
PHONE: 206-553-7970
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?