Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04792/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04792-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

Plaintiff did file a document indicating that it served the motion on counsel for

certain settling defendants. Plaintiff, however, has not indicated that any such counsel now

represent judgment debtors.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SLEEPY HOLLOW INVESTMENT

COMPANY NO. 2.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PROTOTEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-03-4792 MMC 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF MOTION FOR

ASSIGNMENT ORDER ON JUDGMENT

DEBTORS; VACATING DECEMBER 9,

2005 HEARING DATE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Assignment Order, filed October 31, 2005. 

In said motion, plaintiff seeks relief under § 708.510 and § 708.520 of the California Code

of Civil Procedure, as well as under the common law of California.

Plaintiff has not filed proof of service indicating that it has served its motion on the

judgment debtors.1

 To the extent plaintiff seeks an order of assignment pursuant to

§ 708.510, plaintiff must give notice to the judgment debtors. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc.

§ 708.510(b) (providing “notice of the motion shall be served on the judgment debtor”). To

the extent plaintiff seeks a restraining order pursuant to § 708.520, the Court finds plaintiff

must give notice to the judgment debtors, for the reason that plaintiff has failed to state any

reason why notice should not be given. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.520(a) (providing

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 99 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 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 2

The December 9, 2005 hearing date is hereby VACATED.

2

“application shall be made on noticed motion if the court so directs”). Finally, to the extent

plaintiff seeks an order of assignment under the common law, see Peterson v. Sheriff, 115

Cal. 211, 213 (1896), plaintiff cites no authority, and the Court has located none, holding

such an order may be entered absent notice.

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file, no later than November 23, 2005,

proof of service of the above-referenced motion on the judgment debtors.2 If plaintiff does

not file such proof of service within the time provided, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion,

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04792-MMC Document 99 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2