Northwest Administrators Inc v. CY Expo LLC et al

Filing 2

ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT re 1 Application for Writ of Garnishment, filed by Northwest Administrators Inc, signed by Judge Tana Lin. (RE)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,
v.

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 2:24-mc-00001-TL
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT

CY EXPO LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company,
v.

Defendant,

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
Garnishee-Defendant.

15
16

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Northwest Administrators, Inc.’s Application

17

for Writ of Garnishment. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff seeks a writ of garnishment for personal property

18

or effects belonging to Defendant/Judgment Debtor CY Expo LLC that may be in the possession

19

or control of Garnishee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA. Id. at 2.

20

The proposed writ instructs Garnishee “to answer this Writ by filling in the attached form

21

according to the instructions in this Writ” and returning the form within 20 days. Dkt. No. 1-2 at

22

2. However, there is no such form attached to Plaintiff’s application. This may not be the only

23

shortcoming in Plaintiff’s application, but the Court need not scour the record any further.

24

Therefore, the application is DENIED without prejudice to renew.
ORDER ON APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 1

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has a recent history of submitting to this District multiple

2

applications for writs of garnishment that were denied for a variety of avoidable errors. This

3

history includes the following matters:

4

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.,
No. MC21-20, Dkt. No. 2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 2021)
(Order denying writ where application submitted before
expiration of stay of execution under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62(a))

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. KCD Trucking, Inc., No. MC22-76,
Dkt. No. 2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2022) (same)

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. O-CO Concrete Constr. LLC,
No. MC22-77, Dkt. No. 2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 4, 2022)
(same)

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. KCD Trucking, Inc., No. MC22-98,
Dkt. Nos. 11–12 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13 & 20, 2023) (Order
to Show Cause and Response regarding misrepresentation
of the judgment amount to the garnishee-defendant)

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. KCD Trucking, Inc., No. MC23-06,
Dkt. No. 2, 4, 6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 8, 23 & Mar. 14, 2023)
(Orders denying writs for requesting attorney fees above
the statutory limit, failing to provide required information,
and containing deficient language)

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. DHD Trucking, LLC, No. MC23-33,
Dkt. No. 2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 14, 2023) (Order denying
writ for error in judgment amount)

•

Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. CY Expo LLC, No. MC23-51, Dkt.
No. 2 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2023) (Order denying writ for
containing deficient language and missing the answer form
as in this case)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

On at least two occasions, Plaintiff’s Counsel, Reid, Ballew, Leahy & Holland, LLP, 1 has been
sanctioned for application errors, including at least one occasion for the exact same error as in
The signature block of the writ application reflects the firm name as “Reid, McCarthy, Ballew & Leahy, L.L.P”
(Dkt. No. 1 at 3) but the application footer, the ECF docket page, and the firm’s website all reflect a name change to
“Reid, Ballew, Leahy & Holland, L.L.P.” See https://perma.cc/89TA-2PVM (last visited Jan. 15, 2024).
1

ORDER ON APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 2

1

this matter. See KCD Trucking, No. MC22-98, Dkt. No. 14 at 2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2023)

2

($25 fine); CY Expo LLC, No. MC23-51, Dkt. No. 2 at 3 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2023) ($100 fine).

3

The Court will again sanction Plaintiff’s Counsel for their continued errors that

4

unnecessarily waste court resources by multiplying the number of pleadings and orders needed to

5

resolve their cases. LCR 11(c). The Court warns Counsel to take more care before any future

6

filings. The Court further advises that Counsel may be subject to additional and increasing

7

sanctions if the Court continues to receive applications with avoidable errors that cost the Court

8

and its staff time and resources.

9

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

10

(1)

Plaintiff’s Application for Writ of Garnishment is DENIED without prejudice.

11

(2)

Plaintiff SHALL file an amended application within ten (10) days of this Order.

12
13

Absent a timely amended application, the Court will direct the Clerk to close the case.
(3)

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Reid Ballew Leahy & Holland LLP, is SANCTIONED in the

14

amount of $250. Counsel SHALL issue a $250 check payable to the Clerk of Court

15

within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

16

(4)

Plaintiff’s Counsel SHALL provide a copy of this Order to their client.

17

(5)

Plaintiff’s Counsel SHALL file a certification of compliance with paragraphs (3)

18
19

and (4) of this Order within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
Dated this 16th day of January 2024.

20

A

21

Tana Lin
United States District Judge

22
23
24
ORDER ON APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 3