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.

Heather Esget v. Tcm Financial Services LLC; and Does 1 To 10

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


March 27, 2013

HEATHER ESGET,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TCM FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; AND DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING MOTION ) FOR RECONSIDERATION ) AND GRANTING LEAVE TO ) FILE AMENDED MOTION ) FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT . ) Doc. # 30

This is an action for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code section 1788 et seq. Default was entered on May 5, 2011, and again on April 20, 2012. Motions for default judgment have been filed by plaintiff Heather Esget, ("Plaintiff") on August 17, 2011, October 3, 2011, and on May 11, 2012. Default judgment was denied without prejudice on each of those occasions. Most recently, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment was denied on July 24, 2012, because, contrary to prior court orders, Plaintiff had failed to provide proof that service of the summons and complaint as well as motion for default and attachments was accomplished at addresses in Commerce, California, and in Pico Rivera, California. See Doc. # 29 at 3:12-21.

Currently before the court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's denial of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment based on additional, and presumably recently discovered, information regarding the current status of Defendant's location and the effectuation of service on Defendant personally. The court notes that there is no contention that the prior denial of default judgment was erroneous based on the information then before the court. The court also notes that the prior denial of Plaintiff's motion for default judgment was without prejudice. The court therefore concludes that reconsideration of the court's prior order is not procedurally appropriate. Rather, Plaintiff should file an amended motion for default judgment with the Magistrate Judge that includes the information concerning service of process now before the court.

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED as procedurally improper. Plaintiff may file an amended motion for default judgment that includes the information concerning service of process at her convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20130327

© 1992-2013 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.