Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00334/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00334-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, and M&G FARMS, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

JEWELS MARKETING AND )

AGRIBUSINESS, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

 1:07-CV-334 AWI DLB

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

Case 1:07-cv-00334-AWI-DLB Document 153 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

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 judgement

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.

Dated: January 26, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00334-AWI-DLB Document 153 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2