Starmark Financial, LLC v. Luther Appliance & Furniture Sales Acquisition LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
CASE NO. 24-62357-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT
STARMARK FINANCIAL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LUTHER APPLIANCE & FURNITURE
SALES ACQUISITION LLC,
Defendant,
and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Garnishee.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Starmark Financial, LLC’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Entry of Final Garnishment Judgment (“Motion”). ECF No. 72. The
Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge, referred this Motion to
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation. ECF
No. 73; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. L.R., Mag. R. 1. 	The undersigned, after
having reviewed the Motion, the record, and being otherwise duly advised in the
premises, hereby RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED.
In October 2025, this Court granted a final default judgment in favor of Plaintiff
against Defendant Luther Appliance & Furniture Sales Acquisition LLC (“Defendant”).
ECF No. 62. 	That judgment was for a “total sum of $939,837.87.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff
subsequently moved for a writ of garnishment against Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank
Case 0:24-cv-62357-WPD Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 1 of 3

(“Garnishee”). ECF No. 67. The Clerk issued the writ. ECF No. 68. In response to the
writ of garnishment, Garnishee answered that it had placed a hold on a total sum of
$179,021.44 in an account held by Defendant. 	ECF No. 70. 	The account contains
$179,146.44; Garnishee claimed it is entitled to a $125.00 administrative fee and a
statutory $100.00 fee, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 77.28. Id.
Plaintiff does not dispute Garnishee’s entitlement to those fees, and it now moves
for entry of final judgment against Garnishee in the amount of $179,021.44. ECF No. 72.
No response was filed in response to Plaintiff's motion and the time to do so has now
passed. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c)(1) (“[E]ach party opposing a motion shall file and serve
an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the
motion. 	Failure to do so may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the motion by
default.”). 	Accordingly, the Motion should be granted. 	See Managed Healthcare Sols.
Inc. 	v. 	Essent 	Healthcare, 	Inc., 	No. 	09-60351-CIV-SEITZ/SIMONTON, 	2012 	WL
12948557, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2012) (concluding that defendant was entitled to final
judgment against garnishee for the full sum identified in answer to writ), report and
recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 12201245 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2013).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Garnishment Judgment, ECF No. 72, should be
GRANTED. 	The Clerk of Court should enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor against
Garnishee in the amount of $179,021.44.
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
Case 0:24-cv-62357-WPD Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 2 of 3

findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely
object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to 	factual 	and 	legal 	conclusions 	contained 	in 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
DONE and SUBMITTED in Chambers in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on this 10th day
of February 2026.
_____________________________________
PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas
All counsel of record
Case 0:24-cv-62357-WPD Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2026 Page 3 of 3