United States of America v. Dayco, Inc. et al
| United States of America |
| John Brown |
| Dayco, Inc. |
| 2:2022cv02368 |
| June 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Charmiane G Claxton |
| Mark S Norris |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1345 Recovery of Debt to US |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER OF GARNISHMENT. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 7/19/2022. (Norris, Mark)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE by United States of America re #4 Writ of Garnishment Proof of Service upon debtor (Fondren, Reagan) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to Writ of Garnishment by Dayco, Inc. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(btg) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE by United States of America re #4 Writ of Garnishment Proof of Service upon Employer (Fondren, Reagan) |
| Filing 4 WRIT OF GARNISHMENT issued (jae) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Administrative track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (jae) |
| Filing 2 Judge Mark S. Norris and Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton added. (jae) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Garnishment (PLEASE ISSUE), filed by United States of America. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fondren, Reagan) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Tennessee Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
