Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc.

S.D. Florida

Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc.

DecidedNovember 16, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-20761

StatusUnknown

This text of Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc. (Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc., (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.21-20761-CV-COOKE/O’SULLIVAN SIMON LIANSKI, Plaintiff, v. LAS MERCEDES RESTAURANT, INC. Defendant. / ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary to Execution [and] Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion”) (DE# 41, 11/15/21). Having reviewed the Motion, exhibits and the applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Commence

Proceedings Supplementary to Execution [and] Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE# 41, 11/15/21) is DENIED without prejudice due to the lack of filing an affidavit as required by Fla. Stat. § 56.29. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. O’Brien Marketing, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1536, 1539 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (“The two prerequisites to institution of proceedings supplementary are: (1) the sheriff holds an unsatisfied execution; and (2) the judgment creditor files an affidavit so stating and that the execution is valid and outstanding.”); Biloxi Casino Corp. v. Wolf, 900 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Upon a showing of the statutory prerequisites, the court has no discretion to deny the motion.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (“... The procedure on

execution–and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida this 16" day of November, 2021.

JOAN J. O’SULLIVAN CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.21-20761-CV-COOKE/O’SULLIVAN SIMON LIANSKI, Plaintiff, v. LAS MERCEDES RESTAURANT, INC. Defendant. / ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Commence Proceedings Supplementary to Execution [and] Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion”) (DE# 41, 11/15/21). Having reviewed the Motion, exhibits and the applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Commence

Proceedings Supplementary to Execution [and] Incorporated Memorandum of Law (DE# 41, 11/15/21) is DENIED without prejudice due to the lack of filing an affidavit as required by Fla. Stat. § 56.29. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. O’Brien Marketing, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 1536, 1539 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (“The two prerequisites to institution of proceedings supplementary are: (1) the sheriff holds an unsatisfied execution; and (2) the judgment creditor files an affidavit so stating and that the execution is valid and outstanding.”); Biloxi Casino Corp. v. Wolf, 900 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Upon a showing of the statutory prerequisites, the court has no discretion to deny the motion.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (“... The procedure on

execution–and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida this 16" day of November, 2021.

JOAN J. O’SULLIVAN CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lianski v. Las Mercedes Restaurant, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lianski-v-las-mercedes-restaurant-inc-flsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack