Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD.

W.D. Arkansas

Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD.

DecidedJanuary 30, 2019

Docket5:17-cv-05080

StatusUnknown

This text of Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD. (Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD., (W.D. Ark. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION □

ANDREW HAINGAERTNER and ROBERT J. WALSH PLAINTIFFS

v. CASE NO. 5:17-CV-5080 ZHEJIANG SUNSHINE LEISURE PRODUCTS CO. LTD., a Corporation of China DEFENDANT WALMART STORES, INC. GARNISHEE

OPINION AND ORDER On September 18, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. See Doc. 24. That same day, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $23,850. (Doc. 25).' On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Application for a Writ of Garnishment alongside a Supplement and a set of two interrogatories. See Docs. 26, 27. The writ was directed to Walmart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”), as Plaintiffs allege that it is indebted to Defendant and/or was in possession of goods, chattels, monies, credit, or effects belonging to Defendant. (Doc. 27, p. 1). On November 15, 2018, Walmart filed its Answer to the writ and answered “no” to the two interrogatories asking whether it had any monies, goods, chattels, credits, or effects belonging to the Defendant. On the basis of these answers, Walmart asked that the writ of garnishment be quashed. Plaintiffs never filed any objections or denials to Walmart’s Answer or its responses to the interrogatories.

1 The Court additionally awarded $465 in costs and $15,000 in attorney's fees.

Therefore, the Court finds sufficient justification exists to dismiss the writ of garnishment and to relieve Walmart from any obligations arising thereunder. See, e.g., Wyatt Lumber & Supply Co. v. Hansen, 147 S.W.2d 366, 367 (1940) (“An answer of a garnishee must be taken as “prima facie” true, and if it is not controverted by written denial

_. . it will be presumed to be absolutely true.”); Hoxie Lumber Co. v. Chidister, 184 Ark. 612 (1931) (“Here, there being no denial of the truth of the garnishee’s answer, the garnishment was properly dismissed.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the writ of garnishment (Doc. 29) is dismissed and Walmart is relieved of any eh thereunder. IT IS SO ORDERED on this _30 day of Janiary, 2019." AF

MOTHY L. BROOKS fo UNITED. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Lf hs

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION □

ANDREW HAINGAERTNER and ROBERT J. WALSH PLAINTIFFS

v. CASE NO. 5:17-CV-5080 ZHEJIANG SUNSHINE LEISURE PRODUCTS CO. LTD., a Corporation of China DEFENDANT WALMART STORES, INC. GARNISHEE

OPINION AND ORDER On September 18, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment. See Doc. 24. That same day, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $23,850. (Doc. 25).' On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Application for a Writ of Garnishment alongside a Supplement and a set of two interrogatories. See Docs. 26, 27. The writ was directed to Walmart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”), as Plaintiffs allege that it is indebted to Defendant and/or was in possession of goods, chattels, monies, credit, or effects belonging to Defendant. (Doc. 27, p. 1). On November 15, 2018, Walmart filed its Answer to the writ and answered “no” to the two interrogatories asking whether it had any monies, goods, chattels, credits, or effects belonging to the Defendant. On the basis of these answers, Walmart asked that the writ of garnishment be quashed. Plaintiffs never filed any objections or denials to Walmart’s Answer or its responses to the interrogatories.

1 The Court additionally awarded $465 in costs and $15,000 in attorney's fees.

Therefore, the Court finds sufficient justification exists to dismiss the writ of garnishment and to relieve Walmart from any obligations arising thereunder. See, e.g., Wyatt Lumber & Supply Co. v. Hansen, 147 S.W.2d 366, 367 (1940) (“An answer of a garnishee must be taken as “prima facie” true, and if it is not controverted by written denial

_. . it will be presumed to be absolutely true.”); Hoxie Lumber Co. v. Chidister, 184 Ark. 612 (1931) (“Here, there being no denial of the truth of the garnishee’s answer, the garnishment was properly dismissed.”). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the writ of garnishment (Doc. 29) is dismissed and Walmart is relieved of any eh thereunder. IT IS SO ORDERED on this _30 day of Janiary, 2019." AF

MOTHY L. BROOKS fo UNITED. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Lf hs

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Haingaertner v. Zhejiang Sunshine Leisure Products Co. LTD., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haingaertner-v-zhejiang-sunshine-leisure-products-co-ltd-arwd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack