J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Day

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/10/14 ORDERING that plaintiff's April 29, 2014 request is denied without prejudice. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS,
INC.,

No.

CIV. S-10-3023 LKK/GGH

12
Plaintiff,
13

ORDER
v.

14
DAVID MICHAEL DAY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18

On September 14, 2011, default judgment was entered in this

19

action.

(ECF No. 22)

On September 24, 2013, an abstract of

20

judgment and a writ of execution were issued by the Clerk of the

21

Court.

22

a request for an order authorizing service of writs of execution

23

by Rezak Meyer Attorney Service, a Registered Process Server.

24

(ECF No. 26)

25

declared under penalty of perjury by plaintiff’s counsel, that

26

“the U.S. Marshal’s Service does not perform execution levies.”

27

Request, filed April 29, 2014 (ECF No. 26) at 1.

(ECF Nos. 24 and 25)

On April 29, 2014, plaintiff filed

Plaintiff’s request is predicated on the assertion,

28
1

1

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) governs execution

2

proceedings in federal courts.”

3

F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1996).

4

Rule 69(a) rule provides that

[a] money judgment is enforced by a writ of
execution,
unless
the
court
directs
otherwise. The procedure on execution—and in
proceedings supplementary to and in aid of
judgment or execution—must accord with the
procedure of the state where the court is
located, but a federal statute governs to the
extent it applies.

5
6
7
8
9

Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1,

10

supplemented by the requirements of state law, governs service of

11

writs of execution and notices of levy.

12

Rule 4.1 requires service “[b]y a United States marshal or deputy

13

marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1(a).

15

requirements.

16

§ 684.110).

17

Hilao, 95 F.3d at 854.

California law has additional

See Hilao, 95 F.3d at 853 (citing Cal. Civ. Proc.

This court has

been informed by the Office of the United

18

States Marshal for the Eastern District of California (Eastern

19

District) that the United States Marshal for the Eastern District

20

does serve writs of execution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1 within

21

this judicial district, and that writs of execution that are to

22

be served outside this judicial district must be served in

23

accordance with the requirements of the federal district court

24

that covers the area in which the writ is to be served.1

25

1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s request cites to “Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of the United States District Court for the Central District of
California,” Request, filed April 29, 2014 (ECF No. 26) at 1, and the writ,
prepared on a state court form, directs the Sheriff or Marshal of the County
of Los Angeles to enforce the judgment. The Local Rules for the United States
District Court for the Central District of California provide that “[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by order of the Court, or when required by the treaties

2

1

The key fact, not in evidence on this record, is where

2

plaintiff intends to serve the writ of execution.

3

levy accompanies the writ of execution filed September 24, 2013,

4

and it is unclear from that writ of execution how plaintiff

5

intends to execute the judgment, e.g., through wage garnishment,

6

levy on account, or some other manner.

7

serve the writ of execution in an area encompassed by this

8

judicial district, the request for alternative service is

9

unnecessary because the United States Marshal for the Eastern

No notice of

If plaintiff seeks to

10

District will serve the writ.

11

writ of execution in an area encompassed by a different judicial

12

district, plaintiff must comply with the rules and procedures of

13

the United States District Court for that district in connection

14

with such service and, if an order for appointment of a process

15

server is required, present the request to that Court.

16
17
18

If plaintiff seeks to serve the

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
plaintiff’s April 29, 2014 request is denied without prejudice.
DATED:

July 10, 2014.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

or statutes of the United States, process shall not be presented to the United
States Marshal for service.” L.R. 4-2 (C.D.Cal.)

3