Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company v. Fuentez

Opinion

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS TRUST Case No. 1:24-cv-000466-JLT-CDB FUNDS FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT TO SERVE PROCESS v. (Doc. 46) JERRY MICHAEL FUENTEZ, 10-DAY DEADLINE Defendant. Relevant Background Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company (“Plaintiff” or “Judgment Creditor”) filed this action on December 5, 2023, in the Central District of California (Doc. 1) and filed their proof of service soon thereafter. (Doc. 10). When Defendant Jerry Michael Fuentez (“Defendant”) did not make an appearance or timely respond to the complaint, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default which was entered by the Clerk of the Court. (Docs. 13, 14). Plaintiff thereafter filed an unopposed motion for default judgment. (Doc. 16). On April 18, 2024, the matter was transferred to this Court. (Doc. 19). On October 22, 2024, the assigned district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations and granted Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (Docs. 35, 37). Judgment entered the same day. (Doc. 38). Abstracts of judgment were issued on November 26, 2024, and December 3, 2024. (Docs. 43, 45). Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s Request for Special Appointment to Serve Process Pending before the Court is Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s request, filed on August 29, 2025, that a registered California process server (“Process Server”) be specially appointed to serve any writs of attachment and writs of execution in this action. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor proposes the Process Server shall be competent and not less than eighteen (18) years of age; be a California process server duly registered in the county in which the writ of attachment or writ of execution will be served; and not be a party to this action. Id. at 2. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor represents that “[g]ranting this request will affect substantial savings in time and travel fees of the United States Marshal, who shall remain the levying officer under California Code of Civil Procedure § 699.080.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1 provides that “[p]rocess—other than a summons under Rule 4 or a subpoena under Rule 45—must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1. Under Rule 69(a)(1), “[a] money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution--and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). Under California law, “[a] registered process server may levy under a writ of execution” on specific types of property. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 699.080(a). “Registered process servers may be authorized and appointed under Rule 4.1 for this purpose.” First Midwest Equip. Fin. Co. v. Aero Transp., Inc., No. 1:18-mc- 00017-AWI-SAB, 2022 WL 2359284, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2022). Based on the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s representations, and the procedural posture of this case, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s request. See (Docs. 43, 45) (abstracts of judgment issued in this case). /// Conclusion and Order For good cause shown in Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s request, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor’s request for special appointment of a private process server (“Process Server”) to serve any writs of attachment and writs of execution in this action (Doc. 46) is GRANTED; 2. Process Server shall be meet the following requirements: a. Process Server shall be competent and not less than eighteen (18) years of age, b. Process Server shall be a California process server duly registered in the county in which the writ of attachment or writ of execution will be served; and c. Process Server shall not be a party to this action. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor shall file a request for the approval of a proposed Process Server compliant with this Order. See, e.g., Aero Transp., Inc., 2022 WL 2359284, at *1 (granting motion for service of process by registered process server); Hernandez v. Welcome Sacramento LLC, No. 2:20-cv-02061-KJM-JDP, 2025 WL 690049, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2025) (denying proposed process server where plaintiff “has neither asserted nor demonstrated that [proposed process server] is a ‘registered process server’ within the meaning of section 699.080(a).”). IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 3, 2025 | Wan D bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE