Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03004/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03004-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 27:185 Enforcement of Arbitration Award

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 

AND ADDITIVES COMPANY, INC., 

Petitioner,

vs. 

BLACK GOLD S.A.R.L., 

Respondent. 

CASE NO. 19-cv-03004-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER 

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 76 

Petitioner and judgment creditor International Petroleum Products and Additives 

Company, Inc. (“IPAC”) brings the instant motion seeking relief from that portion of Magistrate 

Judge Robert M. Illman’s order denying IPAC’s request for fees and costs in connection with a 

motion to quash filed by respondent and judgment debtor Black Gold S.A.R.L. (“Black Gold”). 

IPAC further requests that Black Gold’s counsel be held jointly and severally liable with Black 

Gold for any fees and costs ordered. 

Black Gold filed the motion to quash a previous order from the magistrate judge directing 

certain persons to appear for a judgment debtor examination. Black Gold presented seven 

arguments in support of canceling and one argument in support of postponing the examination. 

Magistrate Judge Illman found Black Gold’s arguments in support of canceling the hearing and 

vacating the previous order were “meritless and warrant[ed] no discussion,” and thus, were denied. 

The magistrate judge further granted Black Gold’s request to postpone the examination in light of 

the global pandemic and associated travel restrictions. Finally, Magistrate Judge Illman denied 

Black Gold’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in opposing the motion to quash. 

On nondispositive matters, a magistrate judge’s order is reviewed to ascertain whether it is 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The 

standard affords the magistrate judge significant deference. United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 

Case 4:19-cv-03004-YGR Document 82 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

F.3d 959, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2001). 

IPAC asks the Court to impose sanctions in the form of fees and costs pursuant to 

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2023.030. Section 2023.030 is part of the 

Civil Discovery Act, CCP sections 2016.010, et seq. Pursuant to CCP section 2016.070, the Civil 

Discovery Act applies to discovery aiding the enforcement of a money judgment only to the extent 

provided in CCP sections 708.010 through 708.030. These sections provide for written 

interrogatories and inspection demands to judgment debtors. They do not address judgment 

debtor examinations, which are provided for in CCP section 708.110. Thus, the Court is not 

persuaded that Magistrate Judge Illman’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law insofar as 

it denied sanctions based on Black Gold’s attempt to quash the order regarding the judgment 

debtor examination. 

For the foregoing reasons, IPAC’s motion for relief from that portion of Magistrate Judge 

Illman’s order denying IPAC’s request for fees and costs is DENIED. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 76. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

May 19, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-03004-YGR Document 82 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2