first to pass upon the matter. Under the holding of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), and its thrust upon this court by way of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, this court is empowered to decide state law questions that state courts have not yet resolved. Therefore, the fact that the Mississippi Supreme Court has not ruled upon facts similar to the ones at issue here does not prevent this court from addressing the matter. II. Plaintiff argues that this matter should be remanded to state court because garnishment is merely ancillary or supplemental to another action and cannot be removed from state court to federal court. Suffice it to say that Fifth Circuit jurisprudence is contrary to plaintiffs position. See Butler v. Polk, 592 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); and Berry v. McLemore, 795 F.2d 452 (5th
holding that garnishment is a distinct civil action holding that each alleged defamatory statement constitutes a distinct cause of action holding that garnishment of wages is a deprivation holding that a garnishment proceeding is an action against the consumer holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law