Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Coffey Burlington x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Arbitration | District Of Columbia
.Order
MINUTE ORDER (paperless), upon consideration of petitioner's 30 Motion for Judgment Against Garnishee, which motion seeks entry of judgment against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), for $13,984,502, plus interest pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and D.C. Code § 16-556(b), and petitioner's 31 Response to July 13, 2026 Minute Order, which response asserts that petitioner's service of the Writ of Attachment on a "Supervisor" of a Wells Fargo branch within the District of Columbia satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) since Wells Fargo "maintains no registered agent in the District of Columbia," DIRECTING petitioner to SHOW CAUSE, by September 11, 2026, why petitioner's 25 Writ of Attachment on Judgment Issued as to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., should not be dismissed and petitioner's 30 Motion for Judgment Against Garnishee should not be denied, given that "[a]pplications for a judgment" "against a garnishee under D.C. Code § 16-556... must be filed... within 4 weeks after answers to the interrogatories are due and not filed," D.C. Super. Ct. R. 69-I(e), and "[i]f no judgment... has been applied for or entered within the time provided by this rule, the garnishment and attachment must be dismissed," D.C. Super. Ct. R. 69-I(f); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) (requiring that enforcement of a money judgment "must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located"), and that petitioner filed its motion for judgment against Wells Fargo "more than six weeks" after Wells Fargo's deadline to answer the interrogatories, 30 Motion at 2; see also United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 2d 191, 203-04 (D.D.C. 2011) ("[The creditor] therefore was obligated by the law of the District of Columbia to move for entry of judgment within four weeks after those ten days had passed. See D.C. Super. Ct. R. 69-I(e). It failed to do so.... As a result, 'by operation of law,' the writ of attachment 'was effectively dismissed.'" (quoting Pride Transp., Inc. v. Ne. Pa. Shippers Coop. Assn, Inc., 832 A.2d 163, 167-68 (D.C. 2003)). Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 4, 2026. (lcbah2)
Other Statutes: Arbitration | Florida Southern
Response/Reply (Other)
RESPONSE to 191 Notice of Supplemental Authority by Kashyap Bakhai. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 MWE Hourly Rates)(Schwiep, Paul)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.