Fallay v. City and County of San Francisco et al
Filing
264
ORDER continuing hearing on 257 Motion for Withholding Order to August 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM in light of 263 Letter from Zainab Fallay. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on July 26, 2017. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/26/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
AUGUSTINE FALLAY,
7
Case No. 08-cv-02261-CRB (JCS)
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
10
Re: Dkt. No. 257
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
MOTION FOR WITHHOLDING
ORDER
Defendants First American Specialty Insurance Company, Robert Dalton, and Cindy Lloyd
12
13
(collectively, the “FASIC Defendants”), who previously obtained a judgment against Plaintiff
14
Augustine Fallay (“Augustine”), have moved for a withholding order allowing them to collect that
15
judgment from the wages of Augustine’s wife, Zainab Fallay (“Zainab”).1 Augustine filed an
16
opposition brief, the FASIC Defendants filed a reply, and the motion had been set for a hearing on
17
August 11, 2017.
On July 25, 2017, Zainab filed a letter to the Court (dkt. 263) stating that she is separated
18
19
from Augustine, that she has not been involved with this case, that she only recently received
20
notice of the present motion from Augustine, and that she is not able to attend the August 11
21
hearing due to the recent suicide of her son, who was honorably discharged from the United States
22
Army days before his death.
In light of Zainab’s letter, the hearing on the FASIC Defendants’ motion is
23
24
25
26
CONTINUED to August 25, 2017 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom G, located on the fifteenth floor
of the federal courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The FASIC
Defendants should be prepared to address, among other relevant issues: (1) why Zainab did not
27
1
28
For clarity and ease of reference, this order refers to Mr. and Mrs. Fallay by their first names. No
disrespect is intended.
1
receive notice of the FASIC Defendants’ motion to withhold her wages; and (2) the effect of
2
Zainab’s separation from Augustine on the present motion, see Cal. Fam. Code § 771(a) (“The
3
earnings and accumulations of a spouse . . . while living separate and apart from the other spouse,
4
are the separate property of the spouse.”). Zainab should be prepared to address when she
5
separated from Augustine and whether the two still live together.
6
Zainab, who is not currently represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the
7
Federal Pro Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal
8
courthouses. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the fifteenth
9
floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The Oakland office is located in
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Room 470S on the fourth floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. Appointments can be
made by calling (415) 782-8982 or signing up in the appointment book located outside either
office, and telephone appointments are available. Lawyers at the Legal Help Center can provide
basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation. If
Zainab chooses to consult with the Legal Help Center, the Court requests that the Legal
Help Center provide an ex parte recommendation as to whether Zainab is an appropriate
candidate for appointment of volunteer counsel.
The Clerk is instructed to serve a copy of this order on Zainab by mail and to add her to the
docket of this case as an interested party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2017
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
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?