Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00284/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-00284-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK SCHAFFNER,

Plaintiff,

v

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION dba

CROWN LIFT TRUCKS.

Defendant. /

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP,

Lien Claimant.

No C 09-0284 VRW

ORDER

On November 12, 2009, lien claimant Costco Wholesale

Corporation (“Costco”) filed an application for lien under

California Labor Code section 3856. Doc #26. In response to

Costco’s application, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why

the court, in the event of judgment for the plaintiff and after

ordering payment pursuant to section 3856(b), should not allow as a

Case 4:09-cv-00284-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

first lien against the amount of such judgment for damages the

amount of Costco’s expenditures for compensation together with any

amounts to which it may be entitled as special damages under section

3852. Doc #27. On February 11, 2010, plaintiff filed a response to

the court’s order to show cause, conceding that “Costco may assert a

lien,” but arguing that “Costco’s application is premature” under

Cal Labor Code section 3856(b) and Ellis v Wells Mfg, Inc, 216 Cal

App 3d 312 (6th Dist 1989). Doc #28. 

After it received plaintiff’s response, the court provided

Costco an opportunity to reply. Doc #30. Costco, however, declined

to do so by the deadline imposed by the court.

Having considered the matter and for the reasons stated in

plaintiff’s opposition, Doc #28, the court DECLINES TO RULE on

Costco’s application until after a judgment or settlement is reached

in this matter. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 4:09-cv-00284-SBA Document 36 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2