United States v. New-Tech Packaging

W.D. Tennessee

United States v. New-Tech Packaging

DecidedJune 6, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-02249

StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. New-Tech Packaging (United States v. New-Tech Packaging) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. New-Tech Packaging, (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:24-cv-02249-JPM-tmp ) JURY DEMAND NEW-TECH PACKAGING, ) Garnishee, ) ) and ) ) MICHAEL JOHNSON, ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER STAYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT A Writ of Continuing Garnishment, directed to Garnishee New-Tech Packaging, has been duly issued and served upon the Garnishee. (ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment, the Garnishee filed an Answer on May 9, 2024 (ECF No. 7.) It states that at the time of the service of the writ, Garnishee had in their possession or control earnings or personal property belonging to and due or will become due to Defendant. (Id. at PageID 47.) It also states, however, that Defendant has filed for bankruptcy. In re Johnson, Case No. 24-21626 (W. D. Tenn. Filed Apr. 8, 2024); (ECF No. 7 at PageID 46.) With some exceptions, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before” filing of the bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). This circuit has held that because collecting on an existing order of garnishment is a “continuation…of a judicial…proceeding against the debtor[,]” the garnishor must discontinue any garnishment occurring thereunder. In re Mitchell, 66 B.R. 73, 74-75 (S.D. Ohio 1986). It follows that pursuit of such a garnishment order also constitutes “commencement or continuation…of a judicial…proceeding.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

This action is hereby STAYED pending resolution of In re Johnson. Case No. 24-21626. If Plaintiff disputes this holding, it may file a motion to amend this order, citing authority that issuing an order for garnishment does not violate the automatic stay. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of June, 2024.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:24-cv-02249-JPM-tmp ) JURY DEMAND NEW-TECH PACKAGING, ) Garnishee, ) ) and ) ) MICHAEL JOHNSON, ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER STAYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT A Writ of Continuing Garnishment, directed to Garnishee New-Tech Packaging, has been duly issued and served upon the Garnishee. (ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment, the Garnishee filed an Answer on May 9, 2024 (ECF No. 7.) It states that at the time of the service of the writ, Garnishee had in their possession or control earnings or personal property belonging to and due or will become due to Defendant. (Id. at PageID 47.) It also states, however, that Defendant has filed for bankruptcy. In re Johnson, Case No. 24-21626 (W. D. Tenn. Filed Apr. 8, 2024); (ECF No. 7 at PageID 46.) With some exceptions, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before” filing of the bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). This circuit has held that because collecting on an existing order of garnishment is a “continuation…of a judicial…proceeding against the debtor[,]” the garnishor must discontinue any garnishment occurring thereunder. In re Mitchell, 66 B.R. 73, 74-75 (S.D. Ohio 1986). It follows that pursuit of such a garnishment order also constitutes “commencement or continuation…of a judicial…proceeding.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

This action is hereby STAYED pending resolution of In re Johnson. Case No. 24-21626. If Plaintiff disputes this holding, it may file a motion to amend this order, citing authority that issuing an order for garnishment does not violate the automatic stay. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of June, 2024.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla JON P. McCALLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. New-Tech Packaging, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-new-tech-packaging-tnwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack