There is no tentative, the court is inclined to continue hearing on this request to be heard after completion of the contempt proceedings for the reasons described below. The appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy to be utilized only in “exceptional cases.” As such, a receiver should not be appointed unless absolutely essential and because no other remedy will serve its purpose. (City & County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 744.) A receiver may only be appointed pursuant to the statutes that permit a receivership. (Marsch v. Williams (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 238, 246-248.) City requests a receiver under CCP §564(b)(3) and (b)(9). Section 564(b)(3) applies to enforcing judgments; this does not apply as there is no judgment in this case. Section 564(b)(9) applies “[i]n all other cases where necessary to preserve the property or rights of any party.” A party who seeks appointment of a receiver of certain property, under CCP §564(b), has the burden to establish by