Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Autar v. Newcomb

April 15, 2009

CHEVONDA AUTAR, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, AND AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROYCE NEWCOMB; KATHLEEN NEWCOMB, ALIAS KATHY NEWCOMB; RK FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS, BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN; DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Presently pending is defendants' motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff, scheduled for hearing on April 22, 2009. Review of defendants' moving papers indicates that neither the motion, nor the underlying notice of deposition, were served on plaintiff at her current address. See Order filed January 7, 2009, Dckt. No. 18, setting forth plaintiff's current address.

Defendants' statement that they verified by telephone that plaintiff had received the deposition notice does not demonstrate adequate service, particularly since plaintiff, newly relegated to pro se status, hung up the telephone on defendants' counsel. See Declaration of Etan E. Rosen, Dckt. No. 25. More significant is the failure to demonstrate adequate service of the instant motion.

Accordingly, the April 22, 2009 hearing on defendants' motion is VACATED, and the motion filed March 17, 2009, Dckt. No. 23, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Clerk of Court shall modify the docket to reflect plaintiff's current address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090415

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.