Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. AlertOne Services, LLC

Filing 14

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. On June 27, 2014, defendant AlertOne Services, LLC filed an Answer and Couterclaim. Neither plaintiff nor defendant has filed a Statement of Consent under the Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges Program. Prompt filing of the Statement of Consent would allow the Court to determine whether the matter needs to be reassigned to a District Judge, which in turn would allow the parties to proceed toward a resolution of the act ion. In any event, it appears that plaintiff may be in violation of Local Rule 73-2.2 in not filing a proof of service of the summons and complaint within 10 days of service. Accordingly, NO LATER THAN JULY 8, 2014, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to follow the Local Rules. Filing of the proof of service by July 8, 2014, shall be deemed compliance with this Order. (ch)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Case No. CV 14-3660-PLA

Date July 1, 2014

Title: Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. AlertOne Services, LLC

G U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE

PAUL L. ABRAMS

Christianna Howard
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

: MAGISTRATE JUDGE

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE

PROCEEDINGS:

N/A
Tape No.

NONE

(IN CHAMBERS)

On June 27, 2014, defendant AlertOne Services, LLC filed an Answer and Couterclaim. Neither plaintiff nor
defendant has filed a Statement of Consent under the Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges
Program. Prompt filing of the Statement of Consent would allow the Court to determine whether the matter
needs to be reassigned to a District Judge, which in turn would allow the parties to proceed toward a resolution
of the action. In any event, it appears that plaintiff may be in violation of Local Rule 73-2.2 in not filing a proof
of service of the summons and complaint within 10 days of service.
Accordingly, no later than July 8, 2014, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be
dismissed for failure to follow the Local Rules. Filing of the proof of service by July 8, 2014, shall be deemed
compliance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

cc:

Counsel of Record
Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (10/98)

CIVIL MINUTES -

GENERAL

ch