Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flores v. Jewels Marketing and Agribusiness

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 26, 2010

JOE FLORES, AND M&G FARMS, INC., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JEWELS MARKETING AND AGRIBUSINESS, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER RESETTING HEARING TO FEBRUARY 22, 2010

Currently pending before this Court is a third party's motion to intervene as a matter of right and Plaintiffs motions to enforce settlement and for attorney's fees. The matter is set to be heard on February 1, 2010.

In setting this hearing date, the Court informed the parties to "come prepared to discuss the intervention motion, the requested interpleader counter-claim, and the impact of the judgment lien statutes, including California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.440." Court's Docket Doc. No. 152. None of the filed papers discuss the judgment lien statutes, other than citing to § 708.410 as the basis of the third party's lien. After further consideration, the Court believes it advisable to first receive additional briefing prior to holding the hearing.

The California "judgment lien statutes are subject to strict construction because they are purely the creation of the Legislature. Thus, where a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or be subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction and void." Casa Eva I Homeowners Ass'n v. ANI Construction & Tile, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 771, 778-79 (2005). The judgment lien statutes make provision for the settling of a suit (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 708.440) and for enforcing a claim (Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 708.470). It would appear that the judgment lien that was filed in this case pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 708.410 implicates the other judgment lien statutes and the parties' conduct. The parties will be ordered to brief the effects of the California judgment lien statutes, including but not limited to Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 708.440 and § 708.470, on all pending motions before the Court, including the requested interpleader.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The February 1, 2010, hearing is VACATED;

2. The parties shall file the initial briefing, as described above, on or by February 5, 2010;

3. The parties shall file responses to the initial briefing on or by 3:00 p..m., on February 12, 2010; and

4. The hearing on all pending motions is RESET to February 22, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100126

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.