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.

Jesus Sosa v. Bridge Store Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -- FRESNO DIVISION


February 8, 2011

JESUS SOSA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIDGE STORE INC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

Related Case No.: 10-cv-1577 OWW SKO

ORDER RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT

On August 19, 2010, Plaintiff Jesus Sosa ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Bridge Store Inc. and Nishimoto Company, Inc. ("Defendants") asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (Doc. 2.) On September 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed copies of the executed summons served on Defendants. (Docs. 7, 8.) On November 17, 2010, Plaintiff requested an entry of default against Defendants for failure to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. (Docs. 9, 10.) On November 17, 2010, the Clerk of Court entered the default of both Defendants. (Docs. 11, 12.)

On January 31, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside the default asserting that the complaint was not properly served. Defendants also assert that their counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel that Defendants disputed service. Plaintiff's counsel represented that she was going to serve an amended complaint but did not do so, and instead, requested an entry of default. (Doc. 14-2, ¶¶ 4-8.) Defendants' counsel filed an affidavit stating that he had met and conferred with Plaintiff's counsel regarding Defendants' Motion to Set Aside, and Plaintiff's counsel represented that Plaintiff would not oppose the motion. (Doc. 14-2, ¶ 11.)

The hearing on Defendants' Motion to Set Aside the default is set for April 6, 2011. Pursuant to the Local Rules, any opposition must be filed at least 14 days prior to the hearing date. Local Rule 230(c). However, given counsel for Defendants' declaration that Plaintiff's counsel represented Plaintiff would not oppose the motion, the Court finds that it is in the interest of efficiency to require Plaintiff to file any opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition sooner than contemplated by the Local Rules.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT:

1. Plaintiff must file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants' Motion to Set Aside on or before February 23, 2011; and

2. Defendant may file an optional reply to any opposition on or before March 2, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ie14hj

20110208

© 1992-2011 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.