IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MICHAEL CAREY, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, JR United States District Judge
Presented by: BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney KARI D. LARSON ADAM D. STRAIT Trial Attorneys, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Washington, D.C. 20044-0683 email@example.com Telephone: (202) 307-2135 Facsimile: (202) 307-0054 Attorneys for the United States of America
ORDER AUTHORIZING SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO EXECUTE PREVIOUS ORDERS
Hearing place: 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA Hearing date: July 28, 2011 Hearing time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom 7
The United States filed a motion requesting the Court to authorize, but not direct, the Shasta County Sheriff's Office to perform the duties the Court's previous Orders gave to the United States Marshal. The United States has represented that it is time-consuming and expensive for the United States Marshal Service to execute the Court's previous Orders, and therefore has requested that it be allowed to ask the Shasta County Sheriff's Office to perform the same actions, paying the Sheriff's Office in the same manner that a private party would.
The United States has also asked the Court for permission to treat any fees paid to the Sheriff's Office as a cost of the sale of the Bella Vista property.
As the United States argues, no party's substantial rights are affected by this Order: the Court has already granted the same substantive relief to the United States, and the Sheriff's fees are unlikely to be significant enough to affect the recovery for any lienholder or judgment creditor except the United States.
Therefore, and for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1) The Shasta County Sheriff's Office is HEREBY AUTHORIZED, but not directed, to take any and all actions that the Court authorized the United States Marshal to take in the Court's February 11, 2008 Order (ECF No. 125); in the Court's May 26, 2010 Order Granting Motion for Order of Ejectment and Order of Ejectment (ECF No. 160); and in the Court's April 6, 2011 Second Order of Ejectment (ECF No. 202);
2) This Order does not eliminate or restrict the United States Marshal's authorization to carry out the same Orders;
3) This Order does not modify the authority to act set out in the same Orders; and
4) The United States may treat as a cost of the sale of the Bella Vista property any reasonable fees it pays to the Sheriff's Office to execute the Court's previous Orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.