ONEMATA CORPORATION
v.
RAHMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Onemata Corporation, a judgment creditor, sought final judgments in garnishment against Wells Fargo Bank and JP Morgan Chase Bank to satisfy a judgment against Rahman. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted garnishment against Wells Fargo while denying without prejudice the garnishment motion against Chase.
The court granted the motion for final judgment in garnishment against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., but denied without prejudice the motion for final judgment in garnishment against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The magistrate judge's factual findings and legal conclusions were adopted in their entirety.
“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 663] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes that absent timely objections, the district court will adopt the magistrate judge's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOnemata Corporation obtained a judgment against Rahman and sought to satisfy that judgment through garnishment proceedings against two financial insti…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. “(Wells Fargo”) [DE 602], Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (“Chase”) [DE 603], and the March 13, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle [DE 663] (the “Report”).
As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 663] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 663] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 663] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED.
2. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [DE 602] is GRANTED. The Court will separately enter the proposed final judgment.
3. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Onemata Corporation’s Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment as to Garnishee JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. [DE 603] is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. This case shall remain CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2024. [...] [...] % f —_ va a4 v ay d if feos “fh C4, MAGYYWA | KV VME Coe
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)