Opinion
3:21-cv-218-DPM
04-01-2024
MICHAEL HAMES, JR.; MICHAEL E. HAMES; and JAMES KENLEY, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFFS v. STETSON COURIER, INC., and JOHN STETSON DEFENDANTS
ORDER
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge
The plaintiffs have sought, and the Clerk of Court issued, a writ of garnishment with embedded interrogatories to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. J.P. Morgan did not respond to the writ's allegations, but it did answer the interrogatories. It has $1,730.65 of Stetson Courier's money, but it doesn't have any of John Stetson's money. The interrogatory answers are signed by a transactions specialist, but they are not verified. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-110-404. No lawyer has appeared for J.P. Morgan. Approximately three weeks have passed since J.P. Morgan filed these discovery responses. Neither Stetson Courier, the judgment debtor, nor the plaintiffs have objected to J.P. Morgan's response. Arkansas precedent construing the current garnishment statutes and predecessors holds that the various procedural requirements can be waived. Bohner v. Faught, 237 Ark. 639, 374 S.W.2d 825 (1964). The next step here, though, would be an Order from this Court to J.P. Morgan to pay Stetson Courier's money to the plaintiffs. And it's not clear to the Court that J.P. Morgan has consented to this Court's personal jurisdiction to direct that action. The writ to J.P. Morgan, therefore, will remain in limbo until the plaintiffs address the Court's concerns, there is a definitive word from J.P. Morgan (through counsel), or the parties file some agreement about this $1,730.65. Responding papers due by 26 April 2024.
So Ordered.