Xerox Corporation v. Seismicom, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER re 25 Proposed Order filed by Xerox Corporation. Signed by Judge Beeler on 3/26/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
XEROX CORPORATION,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
SEISMICOM INC,

No. C 11-04256 LB
ORDER RE EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAM

14
15
16

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
Plaintiff Xerox Corporation filed an ex parte application for a reference to a magistrate judge for

17

a judgment debtor examination. ECF No. 24 at 1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2)

18

provides, “In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or successor in interest whose

19

interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person-including the judgment debtor-as

20

provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

69(a)(2). Debtor’s examinations under California law “permit the judgment creditor to examine the

22

judgment debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the judgment debtor, in

23

order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the money judgment.” Imperial

24

Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc., 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546-47, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 432 (1995); see Cal. Code

25

Civ. P. §§ 708.110-708.205. In part, the statute requires that the order setting the examination

26

contain the following statement in 14-point boldface type if printed or in capital letters if typed:

27

“NOTICE TO JUDGMENT DEBTOR. If you fail to appear at the time and place specified in this

28

order, you may be subject to arrest and punishment for contempt of court and the court may make an

C 11-04256 LB
ORDER

1

order requiring you to pay the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the judgment creditor in this

2

proceeding.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 708.110(e). Plaintiff’s proposed order filed at ECF No. 25 does

3

not comply with the statute’s requirements. Examples of conforming proposed orders may be found

4

at West’s California Judicial Council Forms AT-138 and EJ-125. The court ORDERS Plaintiff to

5

file a proposed order that complies with the statute and demonstrates that Plaintiff understands and is

6

prepared to comply with the statute’s requirements.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

C 11-04256 LB
ORDER

2