BLUESTAREXPO, INC.
v.
ENIS
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.
BluestarExpo, Inc. sought default judgment against garnishee Jay L. Enis after Enis filed his response to a writ of garnishment outside the statutory twenty-day window. The district court, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendations, granted BluestarExpo's motion and entered final default judgment of $300,000 plus post-judgment interest.
The court held that Enis waived any objections to the writ of garnishment by filing his response outside the twenty-day period required by Florida Statute § 77.055, and that non-jurisdictional notice defects under § 77.041 were also waived because Enis failed to raise them. Default judgment in the amount of $300,000 plus post-judgment interest was therefore appropriate.
[1] A party waives objections to a writ of garnishment by failing to respond within the statutory time limit.
[2] Non-jurisdictional defects regarding notice requirements in garnishment proceedings are waived if not raised by the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because Enis filed a response to writ of garnishment and motion to dissolve the writ outside the twenty-day window provided by Fla. Stat. § 77.055, he waived any objections to the writ.”
Establishes the primary basis for default judgment—Enis's failure to comply with the statutory deadline resulted in waiver of all objections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBluestarExpo obtained a writ of garnishment against defendant Jay L. Enis. Enis filed a response to the writ of garnishment and a motion to dissolve t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
Jay L. Enis, and others, Defendants. Civil Action No. 21-20875-Civ-Scola
Order Adopting Report and Recommendations and Granting Default Judgment
The Court referred Defendant Jay L. Enis's motion to dissolve writ of garnishment (ECF No. 271) and Plaintiff BluestarExpo, Inc.'s motion for default final judgment against garnishee (ECF No. 272), to United States Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué A. Lett for either an order or a report of recommendations (ECF No. 273). Thereafter, Judge Lett issued her report and recommendations, recommending that the Court grant BluestarExpo's motion for default judgment. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 275.) Neither party has filed objections to the report and recommendations and the time to do so has passed.
Despite the lack of objections, the Court has nonetheless considered Judge Lett's report, the record, and the relevant legal authorities on a de novo basis. After careful consideration, the Court agrees with the entirety of Judge Lett's findings and conclusions: because Enis filed a response to writ of garnishment and motion to dissolve the writ outside the twenty-day window provided by Fla. Stat. § 77.055, he waived any objections to the writ. (ECF No. 275 at 1-2) (citing Branch Banking & Trust Company v. Carrerou, 730 F. App'x 869, 870 (11th Cir. 2018). Further, to the extent there are any non-jurisdictional defects as to notice under section 77.041, Enis has not raised them and, therefore, any such defects are waived. See Giron v. Loving Care Ret. Services, Inc., No. 07-23309-CIV, 2009 WL 10712145, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2009) (finding that the court could not sua sponte address plaintiff's failure to comply with Fla. Stat. § 77.041(2)'s notice requirement because the notice requirement is not jurisdictional and the defendant failed to raise the non-compliance.) Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Lett's recommendations in full (ECF No. 275) and grants BluestarExpo's motion (ECF No. 272), thus denying Enis's motion to dissolve writ of garnishment (ECF No. 271). Accordingly, the Court enters final default judgment in BluestarExpo, Inc.'s favor, in the amount of $300,000, plus post-judgment interest.
The Court orders BluestarExpo to file a proposed final judgment on the
docket and to submit a Word.doc version of that proposed judgment to [email protected].
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida on July 18, 2025.
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge