Northwest Administrators Inc v. CY Expo LLC et al

Filing 5

ORDER ON AMENDED APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT re 3 Amended Application for Writ of Garnishment, filed by Northwest Administrators Inc, signed by Judge Tana Lin. (RE)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC.,
v.

Plaintiff,

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

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

Defendant,

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,

17

Garnishee-Defendant.

18
19
20

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

21

Application for Writ of Garnishment. Dkt. No. 3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s first application

22

because Plaintiff did not include an answer form. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The Court also sanctioned

23

Plaintiff for this error, the latest in a series of avoidable and continued errors in applications

24

submitted to this District. Id. at 2–3.
ORDER ON AMENDED
APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 1

1

Plaintiff has now included an answer form with its amended application. Dkt. No. 3-1.

2

However, the answer form is not “substantially” in the basic form set out by statute. See RCW

3

6.27.190(3). To be sure, minor variations in form, like “use of numbering or titling of paragraphs

4

or other devices that may make the forms more quickly understood,” are permissible. 28

5

Marjorie D. Rombauer, Washington Practice: Creditors’ Remedies—Debtors’ Relief § 8:21

6

(1998). But Plaintiff’s answer form instead omits large portions of the statutory language,

7

particularly from “Section I” of the basic form. As another court in this District has already twice

8

reminded Plaintiff, “[g]arnishment is a statutory remedy that requires strict adherence to the

9

procedures expressly authorized by statute.” Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. CY Expo LLC, No. MC23-51,

10

2023 WL 4363674, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 6, 2023); (quoting Watkins v. Peterson Enters., Inc.,

11

137 Wn.2d 632, 640, 973 P.2d 1037 (1999), and denying writ for containing deficient language,

12

among other reasons); Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. KCD Trucking, Inc., No. MC23-06, 2023 WL

13

2214308, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2023) (same); accord LiveOak Venture Partners I, L.P. v.

14

DynaColor, Inc., 25 Wash. App. 2d 1014, 2023 WL 140273, at *3 (2023) (quoting the same).

15

Therefore, the application is DENIED without prejudice to renew.

16

Further, Plaintiff has once again submitted a deficient application with avoidable errors—

17

the latest in a recent line of deficient applications to this District. See Dkt. No. 2 at 2 (collecting

18

cases). This error will cause the Court to have to review Plaintiff’s filings yet a third time,

19

assuming it will re-file the application. The Court is even more troubled given the two prior

20

notifications to Plaintiff of language deficiencies in CY Expo and KCD Trucking, as well as the

21

Court’s admonition in its prior Order to take care before any future filings to avoid errors (see

22

Dkt. No. 2 at 2–3). Therefore, the Court will again SANCTION Plaintiff’s Counsel for this

23

additional error. LCR 11(c).

24
ORDER ON AMENDED
APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 2

1

The Court again advises that Counsel may be subject to additional and increasing

2

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

3

and its staff time and resources. The Court further strongly advises Plaintiff to check their forms

4

and notices for these types of cases, as the requirements are clearly laid out in the RCW. Indeed,

5

the statutes provide model language, making it very simple to comply with the statutory

6

requirements.

7

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

8

(1)

9
10

without prejudice.
(2)

11
12

Plaintiff’s Amended Application for Writ of Garnishment (Dkt. No. 3) is DENIED

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

13

amount of $300. Counsel SHALL issue a $300 check payable to the Clerk of Court

14

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

15

(4)

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

16

(5)

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

17
18

and (4) of this Order within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
Dated this 22nd day of January 2024.

19

A

20

Tana Lin
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
ORDER ON AMENDED
APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT - 3