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.

Marc Aisen v. Berg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 16, 2012

MARC AISEN
v.
BERG, KAREN ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge

AMENDED CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Stephen Montes Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

On July 5, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendants Karen Berg, Phil Berg, Michael Berg, Yehuda Berg, and the Kabbalah Centre, for improper service. (Dkt. 57.) There is no indication that Plaintiff has properly served these Defendants since then. Subsequently, on January 18, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint as to Defendants Hayden Houser, Stephanie Houser, Erin Heidenreich, and Launch Flix. (Dkt. 105.)

In the January 18 Order, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a report, by no later than January 30, 2012, that would set forth how he intended to proceed against the remaining defendants, Ashton Kutcher, Madonna Ciccone, and Cinetic. (Dkt. 105. at 3.) The clerk had previously entered default as to these defendants. (Dkts. 54, 32, 28.)

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order, and the docket for this case does not reflect any filings after the Court's January 18 Order. Instead, of properly filing a report, Plaintiff simply deposited a document titled "Response to Recent Order" in the Court's courtesy copy box. That response is attached to this order. The Court had previously warned Plaintiff that he must file documents correctly and cannot simply deposit a copy in the Court's courtesy box. (Dkt. 47.)

In any case, Plaintiff's response indicates that he is "not entering any default judgments [sic] for the remaining defendants who defaulted on their defenses." (Plaintiff's Response ¶ 10.)

Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case for failure to prosecute. There are two independent reasons for this dismissal: (1) Plaintiff's failure to properly file a report that indicates how he intends to proceed with this case and (2) Plaintiff's statement in his improperly-submitted report that he will not be seeking default judgments against the remaining defendants.

This case is dismissed and the Clerk is ordered to close the file.

No hearing is necessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

Initials of Preparer SMO

20120216

© 1992-2012 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.