Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05162/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05162-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. NELSON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ROBERT DAVID NEAL,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5162 PJH (BZ)

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

This matter was referred to me on March 17, 2010 for a

determination on whether John J. Wall, who claims to be an

interested party, is entitled to apply for a writ of execution

to enforce the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff David J.

Nelson (“plaintiff”). 

F. R. Civ. P. 70(d) provides for obtaining a writ of

execution “[o]n application of a party” (emphasis added). Mr.

Wall has not supplied evidence that he is a party to this

action. His application is also deficient under California

law. The Court requires more information on the following

issues before making a recommendation:

1. Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1), a money judgment

Case 4:09-cv-05162-PJH Document 19 Filed 03/23/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Writ of Execution Form J-130 is available on the

Court’s website. 

2

is enforced in accord with “the procedure of the state where

the court is located.” In California, “a writ of possession

or sale may be enforced as a writ of execution to satisfy any

money judgment included in the judgment for possession,” and

the application must provide the information required by Form

J-130, including “a description of the property to be

delivered.”1 CCP §§712.040(a), 714.010(b)(1). Mr. Wall’s

application is incomplete, because it does not provide enough

information, particularly a description of the property to be

delivered. 

2. In his application, Mr. Wall refers to himself as a

“newly substituted plaintiff,” but the record does not contain

evidence of substitution. 

3. To the extent that Mr. Wall is claiming he is

entitled to enforce the judgment because he is plaintiff’s

assignee, there is no evidence of an assignment in the record. 

4. If Mr. Wall believes there is legal authority for the

proposition that he has standing to enforce the judgment

absent proof that he is the plaintiff or his assignee, he must

provide it to the Court. 

Therefore, if Mr. Wall wishes a ruling on his

application, he is ORDERED to supplement his application to

address above issues by APRIL 9, 2010. If he does not do so,

I will recommend that Mr. Wall’s application for a writ of 

///

///

Case 4:09-cv-05162-PJH Document 19 Filed 03/23/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

execution be denied. 

Dated: March 23, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\NELSON V. NEAL\NELSON V. NEAL BRIEFING ORDER.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-05162-PJH Document 19 Filed 03/23/10 Page 3 of 3