United States of America v. EDF Resource Capital, Inc., et al

Filing 98

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/3/14 ORDERING as follows: The motions to retain this case may be decided based upon the papers, and accordingly, the hearing scheduled for 2/10/14 is VACATED; Defendant's and proposed interveno r's motions to retain this case 62 & 70 are DENIED, and this matter is hereby REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case; the hearing on the motion to intervene 68 is hereby VACATED. That motion is also referred to the Magistrate Judge; The dates previously set by this court in its 10/31/13 order are hereby VACATED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
on behalf of its agency,
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION,

16
17

CIV. S-13-1158 LKK/EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.
EDF RESOURCE CAPITAL, INC.
and REDEMPTION RELIANCE, LLC,
Defendants.

18
19

This is a proceeding brought under the Federal Debt

20

Collections Procedures Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001, et seq.

21

The Local Rules of this court provide that “[a]ll motions brought

22

pursuant to the Federal Debt Collections Procedures Act of 1990,

23

28 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.,” are among the duties assigned to the

24

Magistrate Judge.

25

addition, 28 U.S.C. § 3008 provides that “[a] district court of

26

the United States may assign its duties in proceedings under this

27

chapter to a United States magistrate judge to the extent not

28

inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United

E.D. Cal. R. (“Local R.”) 302(c)(7).

1

In

1

States.”

2

The Local Rules also provide that the district judge “may

3

retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate

4

Judge,” but that “[a]pplications for retention of such matters …

5

are looked upon with disfavor and granted only in unusual and

6

compelling circumstances.”

7

Local R. 302(d).

Defendants and the proposed intervenor have moved to have

8

this case heard by a district judge, rather than by a Magistrate

9

Judge.

They argue that unusual and compelling circumstances

10

exist here, because referring these matters to the Magistrate

11

Judge would “transgress constitutional limitations on [28 U.S.C.

12

§§ 636 and 3008], by allowing a magistrate judge to review a

13

decision of a federal district court judge.”

14

The government has “no objection” either to retention of the case

15

or to its referral to the Magistrate Judge.

16

ECF No. 62-1 at 6.

This matter will be referred back to the Magistrate Judge

17

pursuant to Local R. 302(c)(7).

18

to quash the writs of attachment, garnishment and sequestration

19

approved by an order of the district court judge in the District

20

of Columbia.

21

“reviewing” the D.C. district judge decision.

22

an order granting the government’s ex parte application for the

23

writs, based solely upon government’s representations, as

24

contemplated by the statute.

25

It is true that defendants seek

However, the Magistrate Judge would not be
That judge issued

See 28 U.S.C. § 3101.

Defendants have now requested an adversarial hearing.

26

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will make a decision based upon

27

the arguments and evidence submitted by both sides.

28

before the Magistrate Judge will not be whether the district
2

The question

1

court was correct to issue the order based solely upon the

2

government’s representations.

3

determine, on a full record and with input from both sides,

4

whether the writs should be quashed or not.

Rather, the Magistrate Judge will

5

The initial ex parte procedure, the follow-up hearing, the

6

transfer to a court where defendants reside, and the assignment

7

of the motions to the Magistrate Judge, are all contemplated by

8

statute.

9

circumstances to retain the matter by the district judge.

They do not constitute unusual or compelling

10

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

11

1.

The motions to retain this case may be decided based

12

upon the papers, and accordingly, the hearing scheduled for

13

February 10, 2014 is VACATED;

14

2.

Defendant’s and proposed intervenor’s motions to retain

15

this case (ECF Nos. 62 & 70) are DENIED, and this matter is

16

hereby REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this

17

case pursuant to Local R. 302(c)(7);

18

3.

The hearing on the motion to intervene (ECF No. 68) is

19

hereby VACATED.

20

Judge.

21
22

4.

That motion is also referred to the Magistrate

The dates previously set by this court in its October

31, 2013 order are hereby VACATED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED:

February 3, 2014.

25
26
27
28
3