Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05418/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05418-6/pdf.json

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

CHARTERED SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEGRATED SEMICONDUCTOR 

SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant. 

INTEGRATED SEMICONDUCTOR 

SERVICE, INC.,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

CHARTERED SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING, LTD.,

Counter-Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C04-5418 WHA (BZ)

ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING

By Order dated March 1, 2007, the Honorable William Alsup

referred to me all proceedings regarding Chartered

Semiconductor’s ex parte application for writ of possession.

Plaintiff filed its application pursuant to California Code of

Case 3:04-cv-05418-WHA Document 46 Filed 03/19/07 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 In federal court, “[t]he procedure on execution . . .

shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the

state in which the district court is held . . . .” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 69(a).

2

Civil Procedure section 512.020, et seq., in an effort to

enforce its March 13, 2006, judgment against the defendant.1

An application for an ex parte writ of possession may

only be issued upon a showing that all the elements required

under section 512.020 are met. See Cal. Code Civ. P. §

512.020(b). Section 512.020(b)(3) requires, inter alia, a

showing that the property in issue faces danger of imminent

destruction, concealment, or other harm. In addition,

plaintiff must include in its application a statement of the

value of the property to be possessed. See Cal. Code. Civ. P.

§§ 512.020(b), 512.010(b)(3). Plaintiff must also post an

“undertaking.” See Cal. Code. Civ. P. §§ 512.020, 512.060(2).

Plaintiff has failed to meet these requirements. 

Plaintiff, however, electronically filed its “ex parte”

application and served it on defendant’s counsel. See

Application for Writ of Possession, Proof of Service, *1. 

Given that plaintiff properly served defendant, thereby

putting it on notice of the application, there is no reason to

treat the application as one filed ex parte. Construing

plaintiff’s application as filed pursuant to section 512.010,

plaintiff has still failed to meet all the statutory

requirements. See, e.g., 512.010(b)(3) (requiring a statement

in the application of the value of the property to be

possessed). 

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Case 3:04-cv-05418-WHA Document 46 Filed 03/19/07 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

plaintiff’s application shall be treated as having been filed

pursuant to section 510.010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a

hearing on plaintiff’s application shall be held on April 18,

2007, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal

Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California

94102. Any opposition to plaintiff’s application shall be

filed by April 2, 2007. Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed no

later than April 9, 2007. Plaintiff should be prepared to

provide evidence that all the requirements for a writ of

possession are satisfied. 

Dated: March 19, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\CHARTERED SEMICONDUCTOR\WRIT.POSSESSION.ORDER.RM.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-05418-WHA Document 46 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3