Alert

Doing Something Is Better Than Nothing: LA-SC Provides Some Safe Harbor in Garnishment Cases

November 24, 2025

In October 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court released a 6-1 decision in First Pay, Inc. v. Dukes, dealing with the finality of judgment pro confesso proceedings and the interpretation of recently revised La. R.S. 13:3923, related to garnishment of wages, salaries, and commissions.¹ This case is unique in that the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel were the same entity, and because the Supreme Court’s decision potentially raises more questions than it answers.

In the First Ordinary Session of 2022, the Louisiana Legislature amended La. R.S. 13:3923, through Act 265. The revised La. R.S. 13:3923 provides, in pertinent part:

The garnisher shall serve upon the garnishee the citation, the petition, the garnishment interrogatories, the notice of seizure, and a statement of sums due under the garnishment, such statement to include but not be limited to the principal, interest, court costs incurred to date, and attorney fees due under the judgment. The court, in its discretion, may reopen the case upon the motion of any party concerned for evidence affecting the proper continuance of the garnishment judgment, and the court shall retain jurisdiction to amend or set aside its garnishment judgment at any time in its discretion; however, all effects of the seizure by garnishment shall cease upon the termination of employment of the debtor with the garnishee, unless the debtor is reinstated or reemployed within one hundred eighty days after the termination. Should judgment by default be taken against any party garnishee, he may obtain a reopening of the case upon proper showing and within the discretion of the court.

Case Background

In Dukes, First Pay, Inc. (who uniquely played both the role of creditor/plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel) sought garnishment of wages from Quantix, SCS, LLC, the debtor’s alleged former employer, through interrogatories. Quantix claimed the debtor was never employed with the company and claimed no relationship with the debtor in written response to the interrogatories, which it sent to First Pay but did not file with the court (which is typically not required in other contexts). As a result, First Pay filed a motion for judgment pro confesso, which was granted. Quantix apparently received notice of the hearings but did not attend.

During the hearing in Baton Rouge City Court, the court questioned First Pay (in its dual capacity as counsel and creditor) if it had received unfiled interrogatory responses. Counsel indicated that First Pay had not, and the court found in First Pay’s favor. Quantix filed a motion to re-open the proceedings by providing documentation that not only had it responded to the interrogatories, but also that the debtor (Dukes) was never employed by Quantix.

First Pay opposed re-opening the proceedings based on the above revisions to the statute, but did not dispute that Quantix provided documentation that it was not a proper garnishee. The City Court agreed to reopen the proceedings and granted Quantix’s motion to vacate the prior ruling, noting that the language of the revised provision is clear and unambiguous. First Pay won on appeal, arguing that Quantix failed to satisfy the statutory requirement to file interrogatory responses, and the original judgment was reinstated.

Louisiana Supreme Court’s Rationale and Impact

The Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the statute could not apply in this instance and found in Quantix’s favor. The decision found that a textual application of the statute would have an absurd result since “the purpose of the garnishment law, and permitting judgments pro confesso more specifically, is to allow a creditor to seize a debtor’s property in the hands of a third-party employer.” The Louisiana Supreme Court held that the City Court of Baton Rouge was correct to vacate its prior ruling, due to the absurd result.

The court cited three elements in its rationale:

1. First Pay’s counsel’s misstatement about “having direct knowledge that Quantix did not employ Dukes and was never indebted to Dukes;”
2. That the purpose of judgment pro confesso, to “allow a creditor to seize a debtor’s property in the hands of a third-party employer” was “not advanced” by this judgment because Quantix was never indebted to Dukes; and
3. The “significant” factor that First Pay was both a counsel of record and the underlying judgment creditor.

The myriad reasons provided by the court make the applicability of the ruling to future erroneous judgment pro confessor cases unclear.

The Dukes decision presents key questions, but leaves them unresolved:

• Is a judgment pro confesso against an entity that never employed the debtor always invalid?
• Is it only invalid when the judgment creditor and Plaintiff’s counsel are the same entity?
• Is it only invalid when the judgment pro confesso is obtained despite having actually received the responses?

Regardless, the ramifications of failing to respond to a judgment pro confesso for businesses and employers remain comparatively steep in Louisiana, with the possibility for full liability of another’s debts.

Businesses should be mindful to always respond quickly, and file, responses to garnishment interrogatories to avoid a judgment pro confesso. However, the court’s decision in Dukes makes clear that any response is better than no response, and in a situation like Quantix’s, it might protect an unwitting business from a large judgment.

[1] First Pay, Inc. v. Dukes, 24-1565, __ So.3d __, 2025 WL 2990290 (La. 2025).