United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH WRIT OF GANRISHMENT AND
PARTIALLY GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
found Defendant Hanzada for Import & Export Company, Ltd.
(“Hanzada”), liable for breach of contract.
Plaintiff Hassanin Aly (“Aly”) seeks to satisfy
his judgment against Hanzada through writs of garnishment
filed with National Beef Packing Company, LLC
(“National Beef”). Prior to filing this motion,
Aly served a writ of garnishment (“First Writ”)
on National Beef, but failed to recover any assets.
before the Court is National Beef's motion to quash
Aly's second writ of garnishment (“Second
Writ”) and motion for attorneys' fees and costs for
the First Writ, Second Writ, and preparing this motion to
quash (Doc. 192). For the following reasons, the motion to
quash the Second Writ is DENIED, the motion for
attorneys' fees and costs for the First Writ is GRANTED,
and the motion for attorneys' fees and costs for the
Second Writ and this motion is DENIED.
a $1, 591, 286.60 judgment against Hanzada. Aly sought to
satisfy the judgment with two writs of garnishment against a
third party, National Beef. On May 10, 2016, Aly filed for a
writ of garnishment against National Beef (Doc. 155 &
156). On May 25, 2016, Aly served National Beef the First
Writ and accompanying interrogatories requesting National
Beef turn over all money and property belonging to Hanzada
through the return date of the writ, June 10, 2016 (Doc 181).
In its interrogatory answers, National Beef denied possession
or control of any money or property belonging to Hanzada
(Doc. 192 at 9-13). Aly did not file denials or exceptions to
National Beef's answers.
19, 2016, Aly filed a second request for a garnishment
summons and the Court issued the Second Writ with a return
date of October 17, 2016 (Doc. 189). National Beef complains
Aly is barred from pursuing the Second Writ because Aly's
failure to file exceptions or denials to the First Writ
caused the Court to lose jurisdiction to enforce the Second
Writ. This argument is without merit.
in aid of execution of a judgment “must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is located.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 69. The parties do not dispute Missouri law
applies in this case. In applying Missouri law, district
courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of
Missouri. Lancaster v. Am. & Foreign Ins. Co.,
272 F.3d 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2001). If the Supreme Court of
Missouri has not addressed an issue, the court must determine
how the Supreme Court would decide the case. Id.
Decisions by intermediate appellate courts provide persuasive
authority and they can be followed “when they are the
best evidence of state law.” Id.
Beef argues this Court is without jurisdiction to enforce the
Second Writ. Alternatively, if the Court possesses
jurisdiction, the law precludes Aly from submitting a second
writ because the First Writ failed to produce any assets. Aly
responds he did not abandon his garnishment action against
National Beef by not filing exceptions to National Beef's
interrogatory answers, and that he is permitted to file
subsequent garnishment writs covering different time periods.
This Court did not lose jurisdiction because Aly did not
abandon its garnishment proceeding.
Aly did not fail to follow the rules governing garnishment
garnishment proceeding, a garnishor's failure to proceed
as required by statute and rule constitutes abandonment and
the circuit court loses its jurisdiction to proceed.
State ex rel. Bagnell Inv. Co. v. Luten, 647 S.W.2d
539, 541 (Mo. 1983). With regard to interrogatories, the
garnishor may file denials or exceptions to the
garnishee's answers. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 525.180
(“[t]he plaintiff may except to the answer of
the garnishee for insufficiency. . .”) (emphasis
added); 525.190 (“The plaintiff may deny the
answer of the garnishee, in whole or in part, without
oath.”) (emphasis added); Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 90.07(c)
(“The garnishor shall file and serve on the garnishee
any exception to the interrogatory answers, asserting any
objections to the answers and asserting all grounds upon
which recovery is sought against the garnishee.”).
Beef reads the requirements of Rule 90.07(c) as stating the
garnishor must file exceptions or denials in all
circumstances or else the court loses jurisdiction over any
future garnishment writ against the garnishee. But the rule
states the garnishor must file any exception. If
there are no exceptions, none must be filed. Further, the
statute states the plaintiff-garnishor may file
exceptions or denials. Consequently, Aly was not required to
file exceptions or denials to National Beef's
interrogatory answers to the First Writ. Therefore, Aly did
not fail to follow the ...