Stierwalt v. Associated Third Party Administrators et al

Filing 9

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen re 4 Petitioner's Petition for Hearing to Determine Validity of Third-Party Claim of Security Interest. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD STIERWALT, Petitioner, 8 9 10 11 Case No. 16-mc-80059-EMC v. ASSOCIATED THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS, et al., ORDER RE PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR HEARING TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF THIRD-PARTY CLAIM OF SECURITY INTEREST Docket No. 4 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court Respondents. 13 Currently before the Court is Petitioner Richard Stierwalt’s petition for a hearing to 14 determine the validity of a third-party claim of security interest. At issue is a third-party claim 15 submitted by Camofi Master LDC and Camhzn Master LDC (collectively, “Camofi”). Mr. 16 Stierwalt has asked for the hearing to be held within twenty days of the filing of his petition. 17 Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 720.310(c), a “hearing shall be held within 20 days 18 after the filing of the petition unless continued by the court for good cause shown.” Cal. Code 19 Civ. Proc. § 720.310(c); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1) (providing that “[a] money judgment is 20 enforced by a writ of execution” and that “[t]he procedure on execution – and in proceedings 21 supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution – must accord with the procedure of the 22 state where the court is located”). 23 The Court finds that there is good cause for the hearing to be held beyond the 20 days 24 contemplated by § 720.310(c). The sum at issue is significant (more than $600,000), and, as a 25 facial matter at least, the legal issues are not simple and easy to resolve (based on Mr. Stierwalt’s 26 statement of opposition to the third-party claim). Moreover, evidence may need to be presented to 27 resolve the dispute. See Cassel v. Kolb, 72 Cal. App. 4th 568, 579-80 (1999) (noting that “[t]hird 28 party claims are, by nature, summary proceedings” but “[t]hey are not so summary . . . that the 1 parties are denied the right to a trial with all of its due process protections[,] [n]or should they be 2 so summary as to deny a party a right to a fair trial”); see also Henderson v. Gruntz, No. 89- 3 55230, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 25092, at *3 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a “third party claimant 4 may present evidence and testimony”); cf. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 720.230(b) (providing that, “[a]t 5 a hearing on the third-party claim, the court in its discretion may exclude from evidence any 6 writing a copy of which was not attached to the third-party claim”) (emphasis added). The Court shall hold a hearing (the form of which remains to be determined) on the 7 8 validity of the third-party claim on May 24, 2016, at 2:30 p.m. In advance of the hearing, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer to discuss how 9 resolved by the Court and what evidence may be presented to the Court for consideration (e.g., 12 For the Northern District of California the hearing shall proceed. The parties should discuss, inter alia, what legal issues may need to be 11 United States District Court 10 documents, testimony). The parties should also discuss what filings should be made in advance of 13 the hearing. For example, as discussed with Court staff, it will be helpful for the Court if the 14 equivalent of trial briefs are filed (no longer than 20 pages each).1 Also, identification of 15 supporting evidence (as well as the evidence itself if, e.g., a document) should be filed with the 16 Court in advance of the hearing. Of course, with respect to evidence, the parties should bear in 17 mind that the proceeding here is, generally speaking, a summary proceeding, and thus the parties 18 should tailor their evidence accordingly. All pre-hearing filings, including any objections to 19 evidence, shall be made three weeks in advance of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: April 22, 2016 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Those briefs should address, inter alia, legal issues that may need to be resolved by the Court. Camofi’s third-party claim and Mr. Stierwalt’s statement in opposition constitute the pleadings in this case, see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 720.350(a), but a pleading is not necessarily a sufficient way to tee up legal issues for resolution. 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?