Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Lau v. Pylman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 9, 2010

HUMPHREY LAU, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHI PYLMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

On June 30, 2010, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court. By notice filed August 9, 2010, defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) removed the case to federal court pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1452(f) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1442. The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Defendant Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss is set for hearing before the undersigned on October 8, 2010. Plaintiff has filed a written request to appear at the hearing by telephone. All parties are informed that court appearances before the undersigned may be made telephonically in most instances. No written request or motion is required. A party who wishes to request telephonic appearance at a specific motion hearing or status conference before the undersigned shall do so by contacting Pete Buzo, courtroom deputy to the undersigned, at (916) 930-4128 no later than three days before the date set for the hearing or status conference. To arrange telephonic appearance, the party must provide a land-line telephone number. At the time of the hearing, the telephone call will be placed by the court.

The parties are referred to Local Rule 230, which governs civil motion procedure in the Eastern District of California. In particular, plaintiff is referred to this rule for information about filing opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant Freddie Mac's pending motion to dismiss. The pro se plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file timely opposition or to appear, either in person or telephonically, may result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed for lack of prosecution or as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183. Defendants are reminded that their electronic filings must include evidence of conventional service upon the pro se plaintiff pursuant to Local Rule 135(b).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's August 31, 2010 motion for telephonic appearance (Doc. No. 8) is granted, subject to plaintiff's compliance with the requirements set forth in this order.

20100909

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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