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)

Download PDF
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

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?