United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is plaintiff Stephen Kaplan, P.C.'s
motion for a default judgment. (ECF No. 8). Defendant Cameron
Miller filed a response (ECF No. 9), and plaintiff filed a
reply (ECF No. 10).
7, 2015, plaintiff filed in this court for the registration
of a judgment rendered in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas. (ECF No. 1). On July 14,
2015, the clerk issued a writ of execution on plaintiff's
behalf for a sum of $89, 527.95. (ECF No. 5). On July 21,
2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a charging order, which
requested this court to charge defendant's interests in
two Nevada limited liability companies: RW and Associates,
LLC (“RW”) and CLM Development Services, LLC
(“CLM”). (ECF No. 6). On March 24, 2016, the
court granted that motion. (ECF No. 7).
21, 2015, defendant initiated bankruptcy proceedings, which
plaintiff asserts stayed collection pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
§ 362. (ECF No. 8). Defendant voluntarily dismissed that
bankruptcy action on June 30, 2016. (ECF No. 8-6).
August 15, 2016, plaintiff filed the present motion. (ECF No.
8). Plaintiff argues that Nevada Revised Statute
(“NRS”) 31.320 entitles plaintiff to relief
because the two companies charged with the domesticated
judgment have failed to respond to a properly served writ of
garnishment within the time required by the writ.
(Id.). Therefore, plaintiff asserts, this court
should “enter judgment in favor of Cameron and against
RW and CLM, in the amount of $86, 425.36.”
(Id. at 4).
opposes plaintiff's motion, arguing first that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires plaintiff to join RW and
CLM in the present action. (ECF No. 9). Next, defendant
states that the writ of garnishment is no longer valid under
NRS 31.296 because 120 days have elapsed since its issuance.
(Id.). Finally, defendant specifies that the Las
Vegas constable's office never received a request to
extend the writ and that the “office closed the matter
in its system on or about November 11, 2015.” (ECF No.
9-1 at 2).
replies that defendant does not have standing to object on
behalf of those companies, a charging order remains
outstanding, defendant's assertion of rule 19 is
meritless, and the companies must respond regardless of the
status of the writ. (ECF No. 10).
31.280 grants jurisdiction over garnishee defendants upon
“[t]he sheriff's return of the writ of garnishment
showing due service of the writ of garnishment upon one or
more garnishee defendants with the payment or tender of the
garnishee's fees.” NRS 31.280.
NRS 31.320 governs a garnishee's responsibility to
respond to interrogatories. (ECF No. 10). Specifically, that
statute provides as follows:
If the garnishee has been duly served with the writ of
garnishment and interrogatories, and been paid or tendered
the fee of $5, and the fact of the payment or tender is duly
certified by the officer who served the writ over the
officer's official signature, or that fact is made to
appear by the person serving the writ under oath, but the
garnishee fails, neglects or refuses to answer the
interrogatories within the time required, the court
shall . . . enter judgment in favor of the defendant for
the use of the plaintiff against the garnishee for . . .
[t]he value of the property or amount of money specified in
the writ of garnishment.
NRS 31.320 (emphasis added).
initial matter, plaintiff is correct that NRS 31.296 requires
the garnishee to have responded before a 120-day cap will be
imposed on the writ of garnishment. ...