PDF Downloads

Classifies the action as contracts and indebtedness, estimated $50,001-$75,000, no jury demand. The range is for clerical reporting and is not a judgment.

American Express alleges a $55,233.12 Platinum Card balance, delinquency and suspended charge privileges; asserts breach of contract, account stated and unjust enrichment. PDF pp. 1-4: pleading; pp. 6-19: agreement/privacy terms; p. 21: September 11, 2023 statement, balance $55,233.12; p. 23: August 6 returned check / declined bank transactions entry for $55,204.12. The statement does not identify the reason for the return.

Summons dated November 22 directs Zhang to file written defenses within 20 days after service. Remaining pages contain standard response/accommodation notices. Issuance does not establish completed personal service.

Receipt 5121635 records $411 in fees received from plaintiff counsel, with the fee balance zero. It is not a payment by Zhang toward the American Express debt.

Designates the streamlined track, sets service/discovery/mediation deadlines and an October 25, 2024 trial-ready/calendar-call date. The order sets a schedule; it does not establish that a trial later occurred or decide the debt.

Process server reports five unsuccessful attempts on December 2, 8, 11, 14 and 20, 2023, and inability to locate Zhang. Observations and a neighbor statement are in the return. The later settlement expressly acknowledges service/receipt; this return does not establish intentional evasion.

Judge James Sherman approves and ratifies the stipulation; dismisses and administratively closes the case while expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. This is not a finding that the promised payment was made.

Dated January 11 and filed January 17, 2024. Zhang acknowledges summons/complaint receipt and agrees to one payment of $55,233.12 by January 22. The agreement provides written notice and a 10-day opportunity to cure before judgment, with credits for payments and added costs. PDF p. 4 contains the signatures.

Plaintiff counsel states that the January 22 payment was not made; a February 5 notice gave 10 days to cure; default was not cured. Counsel also acknowledges $133.12 paid and requests $55,129 principal plus $466 costs. These are the plaintiff's sworn statements; the later judgment is the court's decision.

Plaintiff counsel certifies service by U.S. mail and/or email on March 14, 2024. It is a certificate of sending the motion; it is not a separate judgment or independent proof of the underlying account balance.

PDF p. 2 contains the signed April 11, 2024 Final Judgment After Default of Stipulation: $55,129 principal plus $466 costs, total $55,595, with execution authorized. PDF p. 1 is plaintiff counsel's May 8 certificate that the judgment was served by U.S. mail and/or email. The judgment directed service within five days; this certificate is dated later. The supplied record does not establish whether another earlier service occurred.

American Express states that the April 11 judgment was $55,595 and alleges that the same amount remains unpaid. It seeks garnishment against Truist and says it does not believe sufficient visible property is available for levy. The asset statement is the plaintiff's position, not a finding about all assets.

Clerk-issued writ dated June 11, 2024 directs Truist to answer about any debt/property held for Zhang, referring to $55,595. PDF pp. 2-5 are standard rights and blank exemption/hearing/service forms. Boilerplate language is not proof that funds were actually frozen or collected.

Receipt 5362430 records $85 in fees received from plaintiff counsel. Zero remaining balance applies to the court-fee invoice, not to Zhang's debt.

Process server states the writ was delivered on June 17, 2024 to a service liaison of Truist's registered agent. PDF p. 2 reproduces the June 11 writ; pp. 3-6 contain rights and blank exemption/service forms. This is service on Truist, not service on Zhang.

Truist answers that it was not indebted to Zhang and had no money/property of Zhang during the periods covered by its answer, including the service date plus one business day, through the answer date. It demands a $100 statutory attorney fee from the creditor. No frozen or remitted funds are reported.

American Express voluntarily dismisses the writ issued June 11, 2024 and served June 17. The document does not state that Zhang paid the underlying judgment or that it was satisfied.

American Express refers to the $55,595 judgment, payment and/or adjustment of $2,929.12, and alleges $53,145.69 remains due. These amounts are transcribed separately: simple subtraction does not produce the alleged balance, and no ledger in the supplied packet explains the difference. The motion seeks Citibank garnishment, not a new underlying debt judgment.

Writ dated February 26, 2026 directs Citibank to answer about property/debts held for Zhang, referring to the plaintiff's claimed $53,145.69. PDF pp. 2-5 provide standard rights and blank exemption/hearing/service forms. Issuance does not establish collection of that amount.

Receipt 6165643 records $85 in fees received from plaintiff counsel. It does not record a debt payment by Zhang, despite the filename's PAID wording.

PDF p. 1 certifies that writ, motion and rights notice were sent to Zhang on March 5, 2026; p. 2 reproduces the February 20 motion; p. 3 the February 26 writ; pp. 4-7 the standard rights/blank forms; pp. 8-9 the April 11, 2024 final judgment. Those attachments are earlier events, not new March 2026 judgments.

Citibank says it was not indebted to Zhang during the period from service on March 4 to this answer; two identified accounts were closed September 15, 2023; it held no tangible/intangible property for him. It demands $100 in statutory fees from the creditor. No reason for closure, fund transfer or worldwide asset position is established.

Process server states service on Citibank's general manager occurred March 4, 2026 at 10:55 a.m. PDF p. 2 reproduces the February 26 writ; pp. 3-6 are standard rights and blank exemption/hearing/service forms. It is service on the bank, not a completed payment or seizure.

American Express voluntarily dismisses the February 26 writ served March 4. The notice gives no statement that the underlying judgment is satisfied; it ends the specific writ against this bank.

Requires written defenses and payment of rent into the court registry, or a motion to determine disputed rent, within five days excluding weekends and legal holidays. Warns that non-compliance may result in eviction without a hearing or further notice. The last two pages contain Spanish and Haitian Creole forms.

A summons is notice of a claim; it is not a determination of the alleged debt or proof of physical eviction.

The clerk certifies that a true and correct copy of the complaint and summons was sent by first-class mail to the residential address. The certificate and filed-for-record stamp show 7 May 2025.

The certificate records mailing; it does not establish that the defendant personally read the documents.

Page 1 records posting at 9:40 a.m. on 8 May after unsuccessful attempts on 7 and 8 May. Pages 2-5 reproduce the summons. Page 6 reproduces Count I of the complaint: the landlord alleges a written lease with $9,200 monthly rent due on the first, $9,551 owed through April, and a pay-or-vacate notice served on 9 April 2025.

Service was by posting, not documented personal hand-delivery. The $9,551 and $9,200 are the landlord's allegations. The referenced lease and notice exhibits are not reproduced in the ten supplied PDFs.

Plaintiff's counsel states that no answer or other pleading was served before the motion and no money was deposited into the court registry. The motion also states that a Department of Defense military-status report could not be obtained without a valid social security number or date of birth.

This is the plaintiff's request and certification; the court's subsequent order supplies the actual default decision.

The landlord requests a default possession judgment, alleging no response and no court-registry deposit. Paragraph 3 states that its claim for rent, court costs, attorney's fees and other remedies remains pending at that stage.

A request for money or a statement that a claim remains pending is not a money judgment. The later supplied final judgment awards possession only.

The attorney states that the defendant was not in U.S. military service. Page 2 states that no money had been accepted from or on behalf of the defendant since delivery, mailing or posting of the three-day notice. The affidavit is sworn and notarized on 28 May.

The non-payment statement is the attorney's affidavit, not an independently audited rent ledger. The separate motion states that a Department of Defense report could not be obtained.

Judge Michael Barket enters default for failure to file or serve written defenses and failure to deposit any money into the court registry. The order addresses the motion identified as Docket Index 11. E-filing number 224289418.

The second supplied Order of Default has the same operative text, judge and date but a different e-filing stamp. These are not two separate default stages.

Same judge, signature date, Docket Index 11 and operative default text as the first copy. This PDF instead carries e-filing number 224290343 at 08:53:01 on 2 June 2025. Its file bytes differ from the first copy.

This is a separately filed copy with the same operative text. It does not establish a second default ruling or a second eviction proceeding.

Judge Michael Barket enters final judgment in favor of TWJ 1101, LLC d/b/a Panorama Tower and against Yifeng Zhang and all others in possession. The judgment directs that a writ of possession issue forthwith. Page 2 marks the case closed as to all parties. The May 28 date identifies the underlying motion; the judgment was entered on June 2.

This judgment awards possession. It does not award a stated rent amount or prove a sheriff physically executed the writ.

The clerk-issued writ, stamped 12 June 2025, commands removal of persons from the premises and restoration of possession to the plaintiff after 24 hours' notice conspicuously posted on the premises.

The supplied collection contains the issued writ but no sheriff's return establishing when or whether physical removal occurred.