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
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?