Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01905/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-01905-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

 v.

SF GREEN CLEAN, LLC,

Respondent. /

No. C 14-01905 JSW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins regarding the

motion for writ of possession concerning the property located at 222 Halleck Street, Building

222, in the Presidio of San Francisco (“the Premises”) filed by Petitioner United States of

America (“Petitioner”).

On September 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued a Report in which he

recommended denying Petitioner’s motion for writ of possession without prejudice. On

September 29, 2014, Petitioner filed an amended motion for writ of possession which this Court

referred to Magistrate Judge Cousins to prepare a Report. On October 31, 2014, Magistrate

Judge Cousins issued another Report in which he recommended denying Petitioner’s motion for

writ of possession without prejudice on the basis that Petitioner failed to satisfy the

requirements of the writ of possession. Petitioner filed a second amended motion for writ of

possession on November 3, 2014, which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Cousins to

prepare another Report. 

Case 4:14-cv-01905-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 This Court ordered enforcement of the Arbitrator’s money judgment when it

confirmed the Arbitration Award on August 8, 2014. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Cousins

made no mention in his December 4, 2014 Report and Recommendation of Petitioner’s

request for additional post-arbitration rental payments. Regardless, this Court finds that such

an issue is not properly before the Court. Accordingly, Respondent’s demand for jury trial,

filed on October 4, 2014, on the issue of the amount of rent it owes for its occupancy of the

Premises is denied. 

2

 With respect to Respondent’s repeated arguments regarding the introduction of

evidence related to the merits of this Court’s order to confirm the Arbitration Award, the

Court finds such arguments improper because it has already ruled on that issue. With respect

to Respondent’s reply to Petitioner’s response to Respondent’s objections, filed on January

5, 2015, the Court finds such a reply improper. Respondent’s reply asserts that Petitioner

failed properly to conduct the pre-move-out inspection pursuant to Magistrate Judge

2

On November 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued another Report in which he

recommended (1) granting Petitioner’s motion for writ of possession and (2) not deciding at this

time the issue of enforcement of the arbitrator’s money damages award or Petitioner’s request

for additional post-arbitration rental payments. On December 3, 2014, Magistrate Judge

Cousins held a hearing concerning objections by Petitioner and Respondent SF Green Clean

(“Respondent”). Petitioner objected to Magistrate Judge Cousins’s decision to exclude

enforcement of the Arbitrator’s money damages award from the writ. Respondent objected to

the writ’s lack of specificity concerning the pre-move-out inspection. 

On December 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cousins issued a final Report in which he

reissued his recommendation issued on November 12, 2014 to grant Petitioner’s motion for writ

of possession. Magistrate Judge Cousins also maintained the position that he does not have the

authority to order enforcement of the Arbitrator’s money judgment on the basis that such an

action lies outside the scope of this Court’s referral, which requested only a report and

recommendation regarding the writ of possession.1

 

The deadline to file objections to the Report dated December 4, 2014 was December 18,

2014. Respondent filed objections on December 18, 2014 in which it put forward arguments

that are identical to the objections Respondent made to Magistrate Judge Cousins’s Report

dated November 12, 2014. However, Magistrate Judge Cousins held a hearing to resolve those

objections and issued his final Report regarding those objections on December 4, 2014, which

this Court adopts in its entirety.2

Case 4:14-cv-01905-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 4
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 Cousins’s Report dated December 4, 2014. Accordingly, Respondent’s reply is procedurally

improper and fails to address any issue properly before the Court, that is, whether to adopt

Magistrate Judge Cousins’s Report granting Petitioner’s motion for writ of possession. 

3

The Court finds the Reports dated November 12, 2014 and December 4, 2014 thorough

and well reasoned and adopts them in every respect. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s motion for writ of possession as set forth in the November 12, 2014 and December

4, 2014 Reports (Docket Nos. 57, 69). The Court shall enter a separate judgment, and the Clerk

shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-01905-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:14-cv-01905-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 4