Demore v. Klone Enterprises et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
CASE NO. 16-61647-CIV-GAYLES/HUNT
AARON DEMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KLONE ENTERPRISES,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before this Court on Plaintiff Aaron Demore’s Letter/Request for
Writ of Garnishment and Request to File Documentation (“Motion”). 	ECF No. 88. 	The
Honorable Darrin Gayles, United States District Judge, referred all post-judgment
proceedings in this case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. 	ECF No.
89; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 1. Having reviewed the Motion and being
otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion
be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff Aaron Demore brought this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”) against Defendant Klone Enterprises.1 	ECF No. 1. 	Klone
Enterprises, representing itself pro se, filed an answer. 	ECF No. 5. 	However, a
corporation such as Klone Enterprises cannot appear in this Court pro se, so the Court
1 Plaintiff also sued John and Dana Ganci. 	ECF No. 1. 	The Gancis previously won on
summary judgment and are not involved in this post-judgment dispute. ECF No. 53.
Case 0:16-cv-61647-DPG Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 1 of 5

2
struck Defendant’s answer. ECF No. 50. The Court then ordered entry of default against
Defendant after it failed to obtain counsel by the Court’s deadlines. ECF Nos. 47; 50; 51.
Next, the Court entered default final judgment as to liability against Defendant in favor of
Plaintiff, ECF No. 54, and on August 8, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff for the sum of $33,000.00, together with interest from the date of the judgment at
the rate of 1.22% per annum, ECF No. 59.
Three years later, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment, which was granted.
ECF Nos. 67; 71; 72. 	Accordingly, the Clerk of Court issued a Writ of Execution on
September 3, 2020. 	ECF Nos. 73; 74. 	Over the next few years, Plaintiff contacted
chambers through letters and phone calls, requesting assistance in enforcing the
judgment against Defendant and Dennis Colon, who Plaintiff represents is the President
of Klone Enterprises.2 See ECF Nos. 76; 77; 87. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter
requesting “a Writ of Garnishment to be immediately executed against Mr. Colon’s
employer,” which the undersigned construes as a Motion for Writ of Garnishment. ECF
No. 88. Plaintiff also requested permission “to provide the documentation . . . for where
Mr. Colon is presently working here in Florida.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes governs garnishment proceedings in Florida.
See Fla. Stat. § 77.01 et seq. Under Florida law, “a person who has recovered a judgment
in any court against any entity has a right to a writ of garnishment.” Fresenius Vascular
2 The final judgment and Writ of Execution are against Defendant Klone Enterprises, not
Dennis Colon. See ECF Nos. 59; 74. Dennis Colon is not Party to this action. According
to various pleadings, Mr. Colon previously hired and managed Plaintiff while serving as
President of Klone Enterprises. See ECF Nos. 32 at 2; 33 at 2; 66 at 1–2.
Case 0:16-cv-61647-DPG Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 2 of 5

3
Care, Inc. v. Vasudeva, No. 8:21-CV-1474-VMC-JSS, 2023 WL 4947918, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 3, 2023). “[T]o obtain a post-judgment writ of garnishment, ‘the plaintiff . . . shall file
a motion (which shall not be verified or negative defendant's exemptions) stating the
amount of the judgment.’” 	Orso as trustee to Bell v. Alexis, No. 21-60251-CIV-
SINGHAL/VALLE, 2022 WL 2340960, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2022) (quoting Fla. Stat.
§ 77.03). Additionally, “[p]ost-judgment writs of garnishment may be issued ex parte and
without notice to the judgment debtor.” Id. at *2; see also Ciserella v. Wildhawk Holdings,
S.A., No. 212CV136FTMPAMDNF, 2014 WL 12993601, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2014)
(“[I]t is unnecessary to hold a hearing or provide notice prior to issuing the writ.”).
Assuming that Plaintiff’s letter before the Court is intended to be a Motion for Writ
of Garnishment, the undersigned recommends that it be denied for failure to comply with
court procedure and filing requirements. Compare Caplan v. 101 Vapor & Smoke, LLC,
No. 18-23049-CIV-MOORE/BECERRA, 2020 WL 13645279, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5,
2020) 	(finding 	writ 	of 	execution 	was 	valid 	because 	it 	complied 	with 	civil 	filing
requirements), with El v. Weldon, No. 2:21-CV-513-WKW-CSC, 2021 WL 12149526, at
*1 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 28, 2021) (denying motion that lacked case caption, title, or original
signature because it “fails to comply with the most basic requirements of form for Court
filings”).
There are multiple errors with Plaintiff’s filing. The letter is not properly styled as
a motion. See generally S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1. It was also not filed in compliance with civil
filing requirements. See Section 7B of General Civil Case Filing Requirements, available
at https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/Civil%20Filing%20Requirements.pdf (last
visited Nov. 14, 2025).
Case 0:16-cv-61647-DPG Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 3 of 5

4
To obtain a Writ of Garnishment, Plaintiff must file a Motion to Issue Writ of
Garnishment that complies with the civil filing requirements, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. After such a motion
is 	filed, 	the 	Clerk’s 	Office 	shall 	verify 	relevant 	information 	and 	may 	issue 	the
corresponding Writ of Garnishment.
Regarding Plaintiff’s assertions that Dennis Colon may have changed employers
or is relocating to a different State, see ECF No. 88, none of that information is properly
before the Court. 	If Plaintiff has relevant information as to a proposed garnishee, such
as an updated address, Plaintiff shall include that information in his motion. 	See
Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc., 2023 WL 4947918, at *2 (instructing Clerk of Court to issue
writ of garnishment to addresses provided in supplement to motion).
RECOMMENDATION
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing, 	the 	undersigned 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	Plaintiff’s
Letter/Request for Writ of Garnishment and Request for Leave to File Documentation,
ECF No. 88, be DENIED without prejudice.
Should this Report and Recommendation be adopted, Plaintiff should be allowed
to file a Motion to Issue Writ of Garnishment that complies with all procedures set forth in
the General Civil Case Filing Requirements, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local
Rules for the Southern District of Florida, and Court orders. Any such motion should be
filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the Court’s Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation.
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 0:16-cv-61647-DPG Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 4 of 5

5
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 at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 17th day of November
2025.
________________________________
PATRICK M. HUNT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Darrin Gayles
Aaron Demore
8070 N. Nob Hill Road
#107
Tamarac, FL 33321
Case 0:16-cv-61647-DPG Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 5 of 5