Opinion
2:23-mc-00051-LK
07-06-2023
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CY EXPO LLC, Defendant, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, Garnishee-Defendant.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT
Lauren King United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Northwest Administrators' Application for Writ of Garnishment. Dkt. No. 1. The Writ of Garnishment attached to Northwest Administrators' application commands the Garnishee-Defendant to “answer this Writ by filling in the attached form,” Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2, but no form is attached.
In addition, Northwest Administrators' proposed Writ of Garnishment fails to substantially comply with the form set forth in Section 6.27.100(1) of the Revised Code of Washington. The statute directs that, among other requirements, the writ of garnishment must include the following language (in all capitals):
IF YOU FAIL TO ANSWER THIS WRIT AS COMMANDED, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH ACCRUING INTEREST, ATTORNEY FEES, AND COSTS WHETHER OR NOT YOU OWE ANYTHING TO THE DEFENDANT. IF YOU PROPERLY ANSWER THIS WRIT, ANY JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU WILL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANY NONEXEMPT DEBT OR THE VALUE OF ANY NONEXEMPT PROPERTY OR EFFECTS IN YOUR POSSESSION OR CONTROL.
JUDGMENT MAY ALSO BE ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR COSTS AND FEES INCURRED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
Wash. Rev. Code § 6.27.100(1). Plaintiff's writ instead contains the following admonition:
YOUR FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS WRIT AS COMMANDED WILL RESULT IN A JUDGMENT BEING ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, WITH ACCRUING INTEREST AND COSTS WHETHER OR NOT YOU OWE ANYTHING TO THE DEFENDANT.Dkt. No. 1-2 at 3. This does not substantially comply with the statutory language.
These may not be the only shortcomings in the Application, but the Court need not scour the record further. The Application is DENIED without prejudice. The Court reminds Northwest Administrators that “[g]arnishment is a statutory remedy that requires strict adherence to the procedures expressly authorized by statute.” Watkins v. Peterson Enters., Inc., 973 P.2d 1037, 1043 (Wash. 1999).
This is not the only matter in which Northwest Administrators' avoidable mistakes have cost the Court and its staff time and resources. See, e.g., Nw. Administrators Inc. v. KCD Trucking Inc., Case No. 2:22-mc-00098-LK, Dkt. Nos. 11-12 (W.D. Wash.) (Order to Show Cause and Response regarding Northwest Administrators' misrepresentation of the judgment amount to the garnishee-defendant); Nw. Administrators Inc. v. KDC Trucking Inc., Case No. 2:23-mc-00 LK, Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 6 (W.D. Wash.) (Orders denying requested writs based on multiple errors). Most troubling, the Court previously alerted Northwest Administrators to the same failure to use the required statutory language in a prior Order in another case, yet Northwest Administrators continues to use the same deficient proposed Writ. See KCD Trucking, Case No. 23-mc-00006-LK, Dkt. No. 6 at 2 (warning that “[t]he Court's patience [with counsel's inattentiveness] has now run out”). Counsel's inattentiveness has previously resulted in sanctions. KCD Trucking, Case No. 22-mc-00098-LK, Dkt. No. 14. Because Northwest Administrators has ignored the Court's warnings and prior Orders and as a result has unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings before the Court, the Court sanctions Northwest Administrators' counsel, Reid McCarthy Ballew & Leahy LLP, in the amount of $100 to be paid within ten days of the date of this Order. LCR 11(c). The Court will also impose sanctions in the future if Northwest Administrators continues to needlessly multiply proceedings before it.
Northwest Administrators may file an amended application by August 1, 2023. If the Court does not receive an amended application by that date, it will direct the Clerk to close this matter.
Counsel for Northwest Administrators shall provide a copy of this Order to his client.