Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01553-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONCEPCION FLORES MOLINA,

Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff,

v.

LUPE C. FLORES,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01553-CDB 

ORDER TO DISREGARD CROSSPLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSION FOR 

FILING OF STATE COURT FORM 

“NOTICE OF LEVY” 

Clerk of the Court Directed to Return 

Submission

Background

On October 28, 2024, the Clerk of the Court received from Cross-Plaintiff Concepcion 

Flores Molina (“Cross-Plaintiff”) a California state court form EJ-150, titled “Notice of Levy,”

which was shared with and reviewed by the undersigned. The caption of that form identifies the 

attorneys as counsel of record in this action for Cross-Plaintiff. The form states that the levy is 

under writ of execution for a money judgment, with Superior Court of California, County of Kern

case number BPB-21-002427. It is directed to the “Clerk of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California,” for judgment debtor “Lupe C. Nunes” and refers to the “Court 

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 53 Filed 11/05/24 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

2

Registry Funds” held by this Court for the above-captioned case in the amount of $780,986.00. 

It is signed by “Joe Cassinerio II,” stating that he is a registered process server and delivered the 

form to the Court on October 28, 2024. Attached to the form is an EJ-130 “Writ of Execution” 

state court form and a AT-167/EJ-152 “Memorandum of Garnishee” state court form, both 

apparently filed in the BPB-21-002427 state court action.

Discussion

Cross-Plaintiff’s submission to the Clerk of the Court of a “notice of levy” suffers from a 

variety of deficiencies. The submission was accompanied by no notice of motion, motion, 

memorandum of points and authorities, affidavit, stipulation, or declaration as required by this 

Court’s local rules. As such, the Court is uncertain of the intent, relevance, or purpose of the

submission. To the extent Cross-Plaintiff seeks to invoke Local Rule 150(e), that rule provides 

that “[f]unds will only be disbursed after the time for appeal has expired, or upon written 

stipulation by all parties approved by the court.” Neither scenario applies here.

Additionally, Local Rule 131(b) requires all pleadings and non-evidentiary filings to be 

signed by the attorney for the filing party or the party themselves if appearing in propria persona. 

The Court notes that there is no signature by Cross-Plaintiff’s counsel.

Separately, the document itself and its attachments are state court forms that refer to 

proceedings in a state court action. Cross-Plaintiff may not simply file state court documents 

referencing a state court judgment in federal court, purporting to assert some possessory interest 

in funds on deposit with the Clerk of the Court, without any accompanying explanatory 

documents and missing counsel’s signature, in an attempt to place a levy on federal court registry 

funds. E.g., 19th Cap. Grp., LLC v. 3 GGGs Truck Lines, Inc., No. CV1802493PARAOX, 2018 

WL 6219885, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018) (denying ex parte application for writ of attachment 

where plaintiff filed a California state court form and failed to comply with court’s local rules); 

Spears v. Spears, No. 221CV1472TLNCKDPS, 2021 WL 5494810, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 

2021) (striking state court form pleading for failing to comply with federal filing requirements); 

Howell v. Johnson, No. 2:20-CV-0520 KJN P, 2021 WL 4523718 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2021) 

(same). 

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 53 Filed 11/05/24 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

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Cross-Plaintiff’s submission for filing of 

form EJ-150 “Notice of Levy” be DISREGARDED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the submission.

Additionally, counsel for Cross-Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the Local Rules of 

this Court in any future filing. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01553-CDB Document 53 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 3