`STATE OF GEORGIA
`Revenue Maximization Consultants Corp
`a/a/o APX Alarm Security Solutions Inc,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 19MCG057087
`
`Fulton County Magistrate Court
`***E-FILED***SS
`Date: 7/15/2020 11:14 AM
`Cathelene Robinson, Clerk
`19MCG057087
`
`v.
`Brenda Singleton, Defendant.
`LHC Group, Inc. c/o Registered Agent:
`Cogency Global Inc., Garnishee.
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY GARNISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
`O.C.G.A. § 18-4—8(b)(3) requires proper service 0n Defendant before funds may be
`disbursed. See also Cook v. NC Two LP, 712 S.E. 2d 831, 289 Ga. 462 (201 l) (“The requirement
`that the debtor be given notice 0f the garnishment action is 0f constitutional dimension”). In this
`
`case—— There is n0 certificate stating what documents were sent to Defendant;m they were
`sent;m they were sent; and ho_w they were sent.
`
`—- Certificate of service must conform to current law; establish that correct documents were
`sent; and demonstrate simultaneous First Class mail as required by law.
`There is no proof (such as signed green card 0r returned envelope) that Defendant
`received (or refused) certified mail. O.C.G.A. § 18—4-8 (b)(1)(A)(ii).
`Returned envelope must be marked “unclaimed” 0r “refused.” “Not deliverable
`o
`as addressed” is not “unclaimed” 0r “refused.”
`If a web print—out is provided, there must be information in the certificate 0f
`service connecting the tracking number in the print—out and the address/recipient
`to which the certified mail was sent.
`Therefore, Plaintiff’s Request to Disburse Funds will be DENIED, this matter will be dismissed
`without prejudice, and any funds returned t0 Defendant UNLESS Plaintiff e—files on or before
`a new request with documents sufficient to show lawful service on Defendant as required
`by O.C.G.A. §18-4-8 0r Defendant’s written waiver of any service objections and consent to
`disburse fimds to Plaintiff.
`IT IS SO ORDERED, this
`
`o
`
`S
`
`2th day 0f
`
`(Ikalg
`
`2020.
`
`W21) @Qé—w
`
`JUDGE
`FULTON COUNTY MAGISTRATE COURT
`
`L
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
