Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
NP-Lake Owner Trust filed a verified complaint on September 4, 2026, in the Eastern District of California against Jeremy Willer Construction, Inc. (JWC) and other defendants, seeking foreclosure of commercial deeds of trust and recovery on guarantor liability. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta under Appendix A to the district's Local Rules.
On September 11, 2026, the plaintiff filed an ex parte emergency motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 and Local Rule 232 seeking a temporary receiver and an order to show cause about appointing a permanent receiver. The motion also asks the court to enjoin JWC and those acting for it or in concert with it from committing or permitting waste of the proposed receivership property, and to remove Brett Prather, a receiver appointed by a state family court. The plaintiff alleges that JWC lacks proper management and that its assets are being wasted, and it challenges Prather's appointment, qualifications, and neutrality. Those are allegations only; the order makes no findings about them. A hearing was set for October 16, 2026, and Prather had asked to appear by telephone.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the magistrate judge could not presently decide the motion. Proof of service on all defendants had not been completed, so the opt-out process under Appendix A had not been completed and could not be completed before the scheduled hearing. The undersigned therefore did not presently have authority to decide the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The court then explained that, separately, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) allows a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain pretrial matters but not motions for injunctive relief. Upon referral, a magistrate judge may only submit proposed findings and a recommendation to a district judge under § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b). Because the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the court found assignment of a district judge appropriate.
The court treated the receiver request as an additional basis for assignment. It acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit does not appear to have directly addressed the question, but noted that at least one other circuit, in ML-CFC 2007-6 Puerto Rico Props, LLC v. BPP Retail Props., LLC, 951 F.3d 41, 48-49 (1st Cir. 2020), held that a motion to appoint a receiver was dispositive under Rule 72 and could not be delegated under § 636(b)(1)(A). The court ordered the Clerk to randomly assign a district judge to consider the emergency motion, vacated the October 16 hearing while allowing the assigned district judge to reschedule it, and declared Prather's telephonic appearance request moot. The order did not rule on the receivership or injunction request.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a case-management ruling that reassigns the motion; it does not grant or deny a receiver, an injunction, or Prather's removal.
- Where service on all defendants is incomplete, the Appendix A opt-out process cannot finish, and the magistrate judge lacks present authority to decide the motion under § 636(c).
- Under § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge cannot determine a motion for injunctive relief and may only recommend a disposition to a district judge.
- The court relied on First Circuit authority treating receiver-appointment motions as dispositive while noting that the Ninth Circuit does not appear to have decided the point, so that authority is persuasive rather than binding.
- The October 16, 2026 hearing was vacated rather than decided, and the assigned district judge may reschedule it.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of California handles an emergency receivership request before consent is settled. Because foreclosure and guarantor plaintiffs often seek quick receiver relief, it signals that unserved defendants can leave a magistrate judge without present authority and send the motion to a district judge, which may affect the timing of any hearing.
The receiver reasoning is cautious, framed as an additional basis and supported by out-of-circuit authority. As an unreported district court order, it carries no binding precedential weight. Everything on the merits remains open for the assigned district judge, including whether a receiver should be appointed, whether waste is occurring, whether an injunction should issue, and whether Prather should be removed.