U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 176— FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER A— DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

28 U.S.C. § 3013

Modification or protective order; supervision of enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

The court may at any time on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and after such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending, or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Bluewave Healthcare v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bluewave Healthcare v. United States (2017) ca4 “28 U.S.C. § 3013 ; see also Cameco Indus.”
United States v. Lawrence (2008) sdd · cites it 2× “[¶26] The court does, however, have discretion to limit the Government’s enforcement remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 3013 . See United States v. Ogburn, 499 F.”
United States v. Teeven (1992) ded · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 3013 . Here, the Family “appeals to the Court’s discretionary authority and sense of equity” for a modification of the writs.”
United States v. Witham (2011) ca1 “28 U.S.C. § 3013 . 4 . Also on June 4, 2010, the district court ordered Witham to pay $200 per month toward his obligation, subject to adjustment on either his or the government's motion if his economic circumstances changed.”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Recovery Credit Services, Inc. (1993) nysd · cites it 2× “In this instance, 28 U.S.C. § 3013 , enacted as part of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, which provides for equitable supervision of all creditor remedies, is instructive.”
Cablevision System Corp. v. 45 Midland Enterprises, Inc. (1994) nysd “” A similar provision was adopted by Congress in the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 ( 28 U.S.C. § 3013 ) and is treated as reaffirming inherent equitable powers of the court in the legislative history at 136 Cong.”
Schueler v. Roman Asphalt Corp. (1993) nysd “New York Civil Practice Law & Rules § 5240, like the persuasive if not directly applicable Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3013 , permits courts to supervise such devices.”
Federal Trade Commission v. National Business Consultants, Inc. (2004) ca5 “” 28 U.S.C. § 3013 . Because section 3013 grants the district court broad discretion to, among other things, modify the use of any enforcement procedure under the FDCPA, we review for abuse of discretion.”
Robert E. Derecktor, Inc. v. Norkin (1993) nysd “And debt collection remedies can be tempered based on the circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 3013 , discussed in Bridgestone/ Firestone v.”
United States v. Gipson (2010) vaed “28 U.S.C. § 3013 . Additionally, the FDCPA provides that [t]o the extent that another Federal law specifies procedures for recovering on a claim or a judgment for a debt arising under such law, those procedures shall apply to such claim or judgment to the extent those procedures…”
United States v. Crowther (2007) txnd · cites it 2× “2000) (finding discretion in 28 U.S.C. § 3013 ). This does not end the inquiry.”
United States v. Mathews (2011) dcd “(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 3013 ). Accordingly, the Court concludes that, notwithstanding the “shall be granted” language of Section 3004(b)(2), the FDCPA’s grant of plenary authority to district courts to “deny[], limit[], condition[ ], regulat[e], extend[ ], or modify!] the use of…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.