PHL Variable Insurance Company v. Crescent Financial & Insurance Agency, Inc. et al

Filing 35

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CRESCENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.'S ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN 32 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Crescent has not filed any response to the Courts order to show cause. Acco rdingly, Crescent's answer is hereby STRICKEN and plaintiff is directed to seek entry of a Clerk's default and a default judgment against Crescent. On July 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a supplement to its motion to continue the dates set dur ing the September 12, 2016 scheduling conference. Dkt. 33 ; see dkt. 20 (original scheduling order). The Court granted the continuances that plaintiff seeks in its July 13,2017 order. See dkt. 32 at 3. Accordingly, plaintiff's supplemental motion to continue is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom) Modified on 8/15/2017 (lom).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.  Title  CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ‘O’ 2:16-cv-01307-CAS(AJWx) Date August 15, 2017 PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRESCENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. ET AL     Present: The Honorable  Catherine Jeang  Deputy Clerk  CHRISTINA A. SNYDER    N/A    Tape No.   Attorneys Present for Defendants:  Not Present  Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:  Not Present  Not Present  (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY Proceedings:   CRESCENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.’S ANSWER SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN (Dkt. 32, filed July 13, 2017)   On February 25, 2016, plaintiff PHL Variable Insurance Company (“PHL”) brought this action against defendants Crescent Financial & Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Crescent”) and Michael C. Monday, Crescent’s director. Dkt. 1. On May 16, 2017, the Court found good cause to permit counsel for both Crescent and Monday to withdraw. Dkt. 27. In its May 16, 2017 order, the Court noted that Crescent, which is a corporate entity, cannot appear pro se. See L.R. 83-2.2.2. Accordingly, the Court ordered the following: Counsel shall serve a copy of this minute order on Crescent forthwith, notifying Crescent of its obligation to obtain counsel within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-2.3.4. Counsel shall advise Crescent that its failure to retain new counsel or otherwise respond within thirty (30) days may result in the imposition of sanctions or the entry of default. Counsel shall attach a copy of this order to the letter, and shall otherwise comply with all applicable rules of professional responsibility. Dkt. 27-2. On July 13, 2017, upon finding that Crescent failed to comply with the Court’s May 16, 2017 order, the Court ordered Crescent to show cause no later than July 28, 2017 why its answer should not be stricken and default entered against it. Dkt. 32.   CV-1307 (08/17) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.  Title  CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ‘O’ 2:16-cv-01307-CAS(AJWx) Date August 15, 2017 PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. CRESCENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. ET AL   On July 24, 2017, plaintiff served Monday with a copy of the Court’s July 13, 2017 order. Dkt. 34. Crescent has not filed any response to the Court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, Crescent’s answer is hereby STRICKEN and plaintiff is directed to seek entry of a Clerk’s default and a default judgment against Crescent. On July 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a supplement to its motion to continue the dates set during the September 12, 2016 scheduling conference. Dkt. 33; see dkt. 20 (original scheduling order). The Court granted the continuances that plaintiff seeks in its July 13, 2017 order. See dkt. 32 at 3. Accordingly, plaintiff’s supplemental motion to continue is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer   CV-1307 (08/17) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL :  00                          CMJ  00  Page 2 of 2 

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?