1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Gerardo Hernandez, No. 2:20-cv-02061-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Welcome Sacramento LLC, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez requests that “Direct Legal” be appointed to serve a writ of 18 | execution issued in this matter. See Request, ECF No. 57; Writ of Execution Issued, ECF No. 56. 19 | Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he procedure on execution—and in proceedings 20 | supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of the 21 | state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. 22 | P.69(a). Under California law, “[a] registered process server may levy under a writ of execution” 23 | on specific types of property.

(a). “Registered process servers 24 | may be authorized and appointed under Rule 4.1 for this purpose.” First Midwest Equip. Fin. Co. 25 | v. Aero Transp., Inc., No. 18-00017,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2022). 26 Plaintiff states that “Direct Legal” is a “Process Server who is at least 18 years of age.” 27 | Req. at 1. Plaintiff has neither asserted nor demonstrated that “Direct Legal” is a “registered

1 | process server” within the meaning of section 699.080(a). The request at ECF No. 57 is therefore 2 | denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | DATED: March 4, 2025. oUt 5 —— VM ees STATES DISTRICT JUDGE