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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-4371 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY MOTION FOR

EJECTMENT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED

AS MOOT; CONTINUING HEARING ON

MOTION FOR EJECTMENT

Before the Court is the government’s Motion for Ejectment, filed December 16,

2015, by which the government seeks an order directing defendant Douglas R. Caraway

(“Caraway”) and any other occupant of 734 Neal Avenue, San Carlos, California

(hereinafter, “the Property”) to leave the premises by February 19, 2016, upon penalty of

being held in contempt of Court. As the motion was served on Caraway by mail on

December 16, 2015, any opposition was due no later than January 4, 2016. See Civil L.R.

7-3(a) (extending “by 3 days the [fourteen-day] deadline to file an opposition to a motion if

the motion was not filed and served through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF)

system”). To date, no opposition has been filed. Having read and considered the Motion

for Ejectment, the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 152 Filed 01/11/16 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

1

On February 5, 2013, Caraway filed a motion for relief from the Amended

Judgment; thereafter, on February 11, 2013, the Court issued an order denying said

motion, which order was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. (See Memorandum, filed Nov. 30,

2015.)

2

To the extent the government seeks the authority to remove any occupants

remaining on the premises, it would appear such relief has been fully provided in the

Amended Judgment and Decree of Sale (“Amended Judgment”) entered by the Court on

November 18, 2011, and thereafter affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.1 Specifically, this Court

ordered that “[a]ll persons occupying the Property shall leave and vacate the property

permanently within[] thirty (30) days of the date of this Order,” and further ordered that, “[i]f

any person fails or refuses to leave and vacate the property by the time specified in this

Order, the United States Marshal’s Office, alone, is authorized to take whatever action it

deems appropriate to remove such person(s) from the premises, whether or not the sale of

such property is being conduct[ed].” (See Am. Judgment, filed Nov. 18, 2011.) 

Accordingly, the government is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing

and no later than February 12, 2016, why its Motion for Ejectment should not be denied as

moot. In particular, the government is directed to identify in such filing the authority

pursuant to which it believes any remaining occupants of the Property are entitled to claim

a right to possess the Property and thereby contest the above-referenced court order. 

In light of the above, the hearing currently scheduled for February 5, 2016, is hereby

CONTINUED to March 4, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 152 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2