Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00325/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00325-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1352 Miller Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR, No. CIV.S-05-00325 DFL DAD

THE USE AND BENEFIT OF PETER A.

FULLER, individually and doing

business as PETER FULLER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONSTRUCTION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES E. ZOUCHA, an individual,

Defendant.

 /

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s ex parte

application for a prejudgment right to attach order, or in the

alternative temporary protective order. This proceeding was referred

to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having

considered all written materials submitted in connection with

plaintiff’s application, the undersigned will recommend that the

application for temporary protective order be granted.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00325-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 04/22/05 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

1 Under Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, writs

of attachment "are available under the circumstances and in the

manner provided by the law of the state in which the district court

is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought[.]" Fed. R. Civ.

P. 64.

2

Plaintiff’s application, memorandum of points and

authorities and declarations on file demonstrate that (a) the claim

upon which the application for attachment is based is one upon which

an attachment may be issued; (b) plaintiff has established the

probable validity of the claim; (c) the order is not sought for a

purpose other than the recovery upon the claim; and (d) the plaintiff

will suffer great or irreparable injury within the meaning of

California Code of Civil Procedure Section § 485.010 if the temporary

protective order is not issued. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 486.020.1

Further, in light of the ex parte nature of plaintiff’s application,

and considering that one of the pieces of real property put at issue

by plaintiff’s application appears to be defendant’s residence, the

undersigned finds that the issuance of a temporary protective order

in lieu of a writ of attachment is appropriate at this time. See

Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 486.030 (allowing for temporary protective

order instead of writ of attachment where equity and justice under

the circumstances so dictate); In re Wind Power Systems, Inc., 841

F.2d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1988)(“California law allows a creditor to

obtain a TPO against a debtor's property after it has shown in an exparte proceeding the probable validity of its claim and the

probability of great harm if relief is not granted.”).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00325-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 04/22/05 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

2 See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 486.020(requiring filing of

undertaking before temporary protective order is issued); Alan M.

Ahart, California Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts, §

4:361 (2005)(“A TPO may not issue until an undertaking is filed.”).

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff be

directed to file the required undertaking2 and that the district

judge assigned to this case sign the Temporary Protective Order filed

by plaintiff on April 8, 2005. In the event this recommendation is

adopted and plaintiff continues to seek a right to attach order and

writ of attachment, it is further recommended that plaintiff be

directed to follow the noticed hearing procedure to obtain that

relief. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 486.030(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Findings

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 21, 2005.

DAD:th

DDAD1\orders.civil\fuller.tpo.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-00325-DFL-DAD Document 12 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 3