Amur Equipment Finance, Inc. v. CHD Transport, Inc.

Filing 5

ORDER Referring 4 Application for Writ of Possession to Magistrate Judge Oberto, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/28/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 AMUR EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC. fka Axis Capital, Inc., Plaintiff 8 ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE v. 9 10 CASE NO. 1:17-CV-0416 AWI SKO CHD TRANSPORT, INC. dba Singh Transportation, dba Balvinder Singh 11 (Doc. No. 4) Defendant 12 13 This is a breach of contract matter that was filed by Plaintiff on March 22, 2017. 14 On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application for writ of possession pursuant to Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 512.010 et seq.1 See Doc. 16 No. 4. Before a writ of possession will issue, there must be a hearing on a noticed motion.2 See 17 18 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 512.020(a). Here, Plaintiff has not yet set a hearing date, and there is no 19 indication that Defendant has been served with the application. Once Defendant has been served, 20 it is anticipated that Plaintiff will notice hearing on its application. In anticipation of Plaintiff 21 setting a hearing date, the Court finds it appropriate to refer Plaintiff’s application for a writ of 22 possession to Magistrate Judge Oberto for entry of Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.3 24 1 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff also references Local Rule 64.1. See Doc. No. 4 at 2:2-3. However, the Eastern District of California does not have a Local Rule 64.1. 2 A write of possession may be obtained on an ex parte basis. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 512.020(b). However, the application in this case does not state that it is being made on an ex parte basis, and the requirements of § 512.020(b) have not been addressed. Therefore, the Court will not view the application as being made ex parte. 3 Because the Court is referring the matter to Magistrate Judge Oberto, the hearing on the application for writ of possession should noticed for Magistrate Judge Oberto. 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the pending application for a writ of 3 possession (Doc. No. 4) is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Oberto for the purposes of entering 4 Findings and Recommendation. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2017 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?