Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-mc-80043/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-mc-80043-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marsha Meyer
Plaintiff
Alexandra Sokol
Defendant

Document Text:

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 Pro Se Plaintiff did not file a declaration supporting the facts stated in her Motion, or explaining the

exhibits attached thereto. However, the Motion contains a signed verification attesting to the veracity

of the facts contained in the Motion under penalty of perjury. Therefore, and in light of the liberal

construction given to pro se pleadings, the Court may consider the facts contained in the Motion as to

which Defendant has personal knowledge. Cf., Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHA MEYER

Plaintiff, No. 09 Misc 80043 SBA (EDL)

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

ALEXANDRA SOKOLL

Defendant.

___________________________________/

This Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Post-Judgment Interrogatories relates to pro

se Plaintiff Marsha Meyer’s efforts to enforce a default judgment entered by the District Court for the

District of New Jersey against California Defendant Alexandra Sokoll. No opposition was filed, and

Defendant has not otherwise appeared or responded to the motion. The Court finds that no hearing is

necessary on the Motion, and for the following reasons GRANTS the Motion.

On September 16, 2008, default judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant

by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the amount of $109,626.65. See

Motion, Ex. A. The foreign judgment was registered with this Court on March 10, 2009. On September

25, 2009, Plaintiff served Defendant with a set of Post-Judgment Interrogatories by “certified mail”

through the United States Postal Service. Id., Ex. B. On November 1, 2009, more than 30 days after

service of the interrogatories, an email was sent to Defendant inquiring about the status of Defendant’s

interrogatory responses, but Plaintiff received no response. See Motion at 2; Ex. C.1

 Plaintiff therefore

Case 4:09-mc-80043-SBA Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
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

filed the instant Motion to Compel on November 3, 2009, and the Motion was referred by Judge

Armstrong to this Court for resolution on December 1, 2009.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) provides that, “In aid of the judgment or execution, the

judgment creditor . . . whose interest appears of record may obtain discovery from any person -

including the judgment debtor - as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where the

court is located.” California Rule of Civil Procedure § 708.020 (erroneously cited in the Motion as

702.20(a)) provides that a judgment creditor may propound written interrogatories to a judgment debtor,

and the judgment debtor must respond to the interrogatories in the same manner and within the time

provided by Chapter 13 of the Rules, or within 30 days. See Cal. R. Civ. P. § 2030.260.

Plaintiff properly propounded Post-Judgment Interrogatories pursuant to state and federal rules

on September 25, 2009 and Defendant has not responded to them within the time period allowed.

Plaintiff has attempted to meet and confer with Defendant on this issue but received no response.

Plaintiff has properly noticed this Motion to Compel and served it on Defendant. Defendant has failed

to oppose or otherwise respond to the Motion. Therefore, good cause exists for GRANTING the Motion

to Compel and Ordering Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Post-Judgment Interrogatories. 

Dated: January 8, 2009 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-mc-80043-SBA Document 15 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2