Garnishment. John Johnson worked for the street department of the Town of Trail Creek. In August 1989, Trail Creek received notice from a court that one of Johnsons creditors had received a court judgment against Johnson for an unpaid debt. The notice also stated that Johnsons wages would be subject to garnishment, pending a determination of whether Trail Creek owed any obligations or credits (for example, wages) to Johnson that could be garnished. Johnson was fired two days after this notice was received. Johnson brought an action against the town, the president of the town council, and the superintendent of the towns street department (the defendants), alleging, among other things, that the defendants had violated federal law because he was dismissed as a result of the notice of possible garnishment. The defendants moved to dismiss Johnsons complaint on the ground that they could not have violated the law because Johnsons wages were not actually being withheld at the time of his dischargein other words, no garnishment proceeding had yet occurred. Must wages actually be withheld before a garnishment proceeding can be held to have occurred? How should the court rule