O'Campo v. Ghoman et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/30/13 ORDERING that plaintiff has already served the motion on defendants by mail and received no response, the court denies this request. In light of defendants' lack of response, however, the hearing set for May 10, 2013 is vacated under Local Rules 230(c) and 230(g). (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DIMAS O’CAMPO,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:08-CV-01624-KJM-DAD

vs.

13
14
15

RAGHBIR SINGH GHOMAN d/b/a
QUIK SHOP 2; GHOMAN’S
PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendants.

16
17

ORDER

________________________________/
Plaintiff filed this action on July 15, 2008. (ECF 1.) On July 29, 2009, the court

18
19

granted the motion to withdraw filed by defendants’ counsel, Cris. C. Vaughan. (ECF 9.) On

20

March 19, 2012, Alfred Walter Driscol, III of Chico, California entered an appearance on

21

behalf of defendants. (ECF 31.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on February 8,

22

2013. (ECF 42.) The Clerk of Court entered a notice on the docket indicating that notice of

23

plaintiff’s motion
[C]ould not be served on [Driscol]. The court received a
bounceback notification that the email to [Driscol’s email address
on file] was undeliverable. Court attempted to contact [Driscol]
at his phone number and it is disconnected. The California Bar
Website has the same contact information on file and indicates
the State Bar has filed disciplinary charges against Mr. Driscol.

24
25
26
27
28

(ECF 43.)
1

1

Subsequently, the court reset the hearing on plaintiff’s motion, originally set for

2

March 15, 2013, to May 10, 2013. (ECF 45.) The court also ordered plaintiff to serve the

3

motion on defense counsel and separately on defendants by mail. (ECF 45.) Plaintiff filed a

4

certificate of service on both defense counsel and defendants on March 14. (ECF 46.) Plaintiff

5

has filed an ex parte application requesting to contact defendants directly, explaining that

6

plaintiff’s attempts to contact defendants’ counsel have been futile. (ECF 47.) Electronic

7

service on Driscol of the ex parte application was also unsuccessful. (ECF 48.)

8

As plaintiff has already served the motion on defendants by mail and received

9

no response, the court denies this request. In light of defendants’ lack of response, however,

10
11
12

the hearing set for May 10, 2013 is vacated under Local Rules 230(c) and 230(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 30, 2013.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2