UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 2, 2011
KILLINGTON LAND TRUST, ET AL.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
On May 31, 2011, defendant Stephen Lindsey ("Lindsey") filed a "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment" (Docket No. 29). At the time Lindsey filed his "Notice," he had pending a successive Bankruptcy Petition. On July 5, 2011, Lindsey filed a Notice of Withdrawal of that Bankruptcy Petition. As a result, the automatic stay that had been in place was dissolved.
Previously, the Court has noted that Lindsey's filings in this case, specifically, a "Notice to Court of its Lack of In Personam and Plenary Jurisdiction" and a second "Notice to Court of its Lack of In Personam and Plenary Jurisdiction" were neither an Answer nor a properly noticed motion to dismiss. Nor is Lindsey's "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment" an Answer or a properly noticed motion to dismiss. Moreover, because the Court has not entered Lindsey's default, and no judgment has been entered in this action, Lindsey's "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment" is improper. No Judgment has been entered and there is therefore nothing to vacate. Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, "no oral motions will be recognized and every motion shall be presented by written notice of motion. The notice of motion shall be filed with the Clerk not later than twenty-eight (28) days before the date set for hearing, and shall be served on each of the parties . . . ." Lindsey's "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment" is not a noticed motion and is therefore in violation of the Local Rules. To the extent Court construes the "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment" as a noticed motion, the Court denies the "Notice to Vacate a Void Judgment."
Despite repeated warnings, and this Court's issuance of an order to show cause why Lindsey's default should not be entered for failing to timely file either an Answer or properly noticed Motion to Dismiss, Lindsey has still not filed an adequate or proper response to the Government's action against him. The Court therefore issues a final order to show cause why his default should not be entered. Lindsey's response to the order to show cause, if any, must be filed no later than August 22, 2011. If Lindsey does not timely or adequately respond to the order to show cause by that date, the Court will enter his default without further warning.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.