United States of America v. Park et al

Filing 10

CONTINUING GARNISHMENT ORDER signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik re 8 Motion. (CDA)

Download PDF
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?