Blue Grass Manufacturing Company of Lexington, Inc. v. Beyond A Blade, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING re 6 Ex Parte MOTION for process server to levy execution filed by Blue Grass Manufacturing Company of Lexington, Inc.. Signed by Judge Beeler on 5/6/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
BLUE GRASS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY OF LEXINGTON, INC.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
13
14

v.
BEYOND A BLADE, INC., FLUSH-CUT,
INC., and PAWS OFF TOOLS, LLC

No. MC 10-80248 WHA (LB)
ORDER DIRECTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RE EX
PARTE MOTION FOR PROCESS
SERVER TO LEVY EXECUTION
[ECF No. 6]

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Blue Grass Manufacturing Company of Lexington, Inc. (“Blue Grass”) filed an

18

unopposed ex parte motion seeking an order permitting a private process server to levy execution

19

instead of a United States marshal. ECF No. 6.1 The district court referred the matter to the

20

undersigned on January 25, 2011. ECF No. 10.

21

The undersigned observes that Judge Alsup has denied a similar request in the past. See J & J

22

Sports Productions, Inc. v. Steve Sang Ro (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010), No. C 09-02860 WHA, ECF

23

No. 42 at 1-2. In J & J Sports Productions, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the amount

24

of $4,350 against the defendant. Id. at 1. Then, the plaintiff moved pursuant to section 699.080 of

25

the California Code of Civil Procedure for an order authorizing a process server – instead of United

26

States marshals perform service – to effectuate service of the writ of execution. Id. The plaintiff

27
28

1

Citations are to the clerk’s electronic case file (ECF) with pin cites to the electronic page
numbers at the top (as opposed to the bottom) of the page.
ORDER
(MC 10-80248 WHA (LB))

1

claimed that this would relieve the United States marshals of the burden of effectuating service. Id.

2

Judge Alsup denied the request because writs of execution issued by federal district courts are

3

ordinarily served by United States marshals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 566(c), and the plaintiff failed

4

to explain what about the matter justified departing from the normal course of action in which

5

United States marshals perform the duty of service. Id. at 1-2. Blue Grass did not address this issue

6

either.

7

Therefore, the undersigned ORDERS Blue Grass to submit supplemental briefing on why the

8

facts of this case militate in favor of application of California Code of Civil Procedure § 699.080

9

instead of 28 U.S.C. § 566(c) by May 12, 2011.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
Dated: May 6, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
(MC 10-80248 WHA (LB))

2