G & G Closed Circuit Events LLC v. Dormanesh

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS re 19 Proposed Order. Signed by Chief Judge James Ware on June 21, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 11-02092 JW
NO. C 10-03528 JW

J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,

11

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING REQUESTS

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
Phoung Tan, d.b.a. Charlie Chan Café, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

/
G & G Closed Circuit Events LLC,

16

Plaintiff,
v.

17
18

Fardad Dormanesh d.b.a. Deezi’s Café
Persia, et al.,

19

Defendants.
/

20
Presently before the Court are identical “Requests” filed by Plaintiffs in both of the above21

captioned cases.1 In each Request, Plaintiff asks the Court, “pursuant to the provisions of Rule

22
4.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 54-2 of the Local Rules,” to appoint a
23
“registered process server, who is at least 18 years of age, of suitable discretion, and not a party to
24
the within [sic] action,” to “serve writs” in the case. (See, e.g., J & J Request at 1-2.)
25
26
27
28

1

(Judgment Creditor’s Request and Order [sic] for Service of Process by Registered Process
Server, hereafter, “J & J Request,” Docket Item No. 14 in No. C 11-02092 JW; Judgment Creditor’s
Request and Order [sic] for Service of Process by Registered Process Server, Docket Item No. 19 in
No. C 10-03528 JW.) Both Requests were filed by the same attorney, who is co-counsel for
Plaintiffs in both cases.

1

Upon review, the Court does not find good cause to grant the Requests. In particular, the

2

Court finds that the Requests are improperly noticed and supported, pursuant to the Civil Local

3

Rules. The Local Rules provide that “[a]ny written request to the Court for an order must be

4

presented by,” inter alia, a “[d]uly noticed motion pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-2.” Civ. L.R. 7-1(a). In

5

turn, Civil L.R. 7-2 provides that a motion must contain, inter alia, a “concise statement of what

6

relief or Court action the movant seeks” and “the points and authorities in support of the motion.”

7

Id. 7-2(b). Here, neither Request was properly noticed as a motion. Instead, both Requests were

8

filed on their respective dockets as “Proposed Orders.” Further, the Requests consist–in their

9

entirety–of the single sentence summarized above, followed by the sentence “The United States
Marshal shall remain the Levying Officer.” (J & J Request at 2.) However, the Court finds that this

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

constitutes inadequate support for the Requests, even if they had been properly noticed. In

12

particular, the Court finds that the only two “authorities” cited by the Requests–namely, Fed. R. Civ.

13

P. 4.1(a) and Civ. L.R. 54-2–do not provide adequate support for the requests. For example, Civ.

14

L.R. 54-2 addresses “objections to [a] bill of costs,” and does not speak to service of process in any

15

way.2

16

Accordingly, the Court DENIES both Requests as improperly noticed and supported.

17
18

Dated: June 21, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court observes that while both Requests, as discussed above, purport to rely on Civ.
L.R. 54-2, the captions of the Requests refer to “Local Rule 64-2.” However, this reference is
unhelpful, insofar as there is no Civil Local Rule 64-2 in the Northern District of California.
2

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Monica Ariel Mihell [e-mail]
Thomas Peter Riley [e-mail]

3
4
Dated: June 21, 2012

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
William Noble
Courtroom Deputy