Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01783/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01783-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Credit Company
Plaintiff
Sebastopol Ford, Inc.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SEBASTOPOL FORD, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-1783 JSW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF

POSSESSION

Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Co. has filed an ex parte application for writ of possession and

for injunctive relief, which Judge White has referred to the undersigned for a report and

recommendation. 

As noted above, Plaintiff seeks an ex parte writ of possession. However, that is a drastic

remedy generally disfavored, in part because a TRO pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

§ 513.010 is more readily available. See Sea Rail Truckloads, Inc. v. Pullman, Inc., 131 Cal. App.

3d 511, 515 (1982) (noting that an ex parte writ of possession is appropriate “only when less

intrusive remedies would be ineffective”; concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to an ex parte

writ of possession because plaintiff failed to show an immediate danger that the property would be

transferred, concealed or removed from the state or become substantially impaired in value by acts

of destruction or by failure to take care of the property in a reasonable manner). Accordingly, the

Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte writ of possession and shall proceed with Plaintiff’s

request for a TRO pending a noticed claim and delivery hearing.

Case 3:07-cv-01783-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 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

1

 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction directing Defendant

to protect and preserve the property at issue pending turnover or seizure. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

513.010(c).

2

Consistent with the Court’s order of April 12, 2007, a claim and delivery hearing shall be

held on April 27, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. Any opposition to the application for writ of possession shall

be filed and served by April 20, 2007, and any reply by April 25, 2007. All papers and the hearing

shall also address Plaintiff’s alternative request for a preliminary injunction.1 See App. at 16.

In addition, prior to the claim and delivery hearing, the Court shall hold a hearing on

Plaintiff’s request for a TRO pending the claim and delivery hearing. The hearing on the TRO

request shall be held on April 18, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. Any opposition to the request for a TRO shall

be filed and served by 3:00 p.m. on April 17, 2007. 

Finally, Plaintiff is ordered to file a copy of the proof of service for the summons and

complaint by April 16, 2007.

Upon receipt of this order, Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on

Defendant as well as a copy of the notice form (CD-110) adopted by the California Judicial Counsel. 

See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 512.040 (notice of application and hearing for writ of possession). 

Plaintiff shall effect service so that the documents are received by Defendant today. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01783-JSW Document 23 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2