Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Dick Emard Electric, Inc.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/20/11 ORDERING Plaintiff has not justified Doe Defendants remaining inthis action, Does 1-20 are dismissed; Plaintiff has an extension until September 16, 2011 to serve Defendant Luke Emard; and the status conference set for 8/1/11 is continued to 1/30/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Connecticut corporation,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12

17

DICK EMARD ELECTRIC, INC. dba
EMARD ELECTRIC, a California
corporation; LUKE EMARD, an
individual; EMARD’S ELECTRICAL
HOME TECHNICIANS, INC., an
entity of unknown form; and
EMARD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a
California corporation,
inclusive,

18

Defendants.1
________________________________

13
14
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00716-GEB-EFB
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS
(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)
CONFERENCE; FED. R. CIV. P.
4(M) NOTICE

19
20

Plaintiff states in its Status Report filed July 15, 2011:

21

“Defendants DICK EMARD ELECTRIC, INC. dba EMARD ELECTRIC, a California

22

corporation; EMARD’S ELECTRICAL HOME TECHNICIANS, INC., an entity of

23

unknown

24

corporation have been served, and defaults were entered against them on

25

May 5, 2011.” (ECF No. 14, 2:12-16.)

form;

and

EMARD

DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,

a

California

26
27
28

1

The caption has been amended according to Plaintiff’s
voluntary dismissal of Defendant Carrie Emard (ECF No. 13) and the
Dismissal of Doe Defendants portion of this Order.
1

1

Plaintiff shall file a motion for entry of default judgment as

2

to these Defendants before the Magistrate Judge within forty-five (45)

3

days of the date on which this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to

4

timely file the motion, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later

5

than 4:00 p.m. on September 19, 2011, why these defendants should not be

6

dismissed for failure of prosecution.

7

DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

8
9

Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe Defendants remaining in
this

action,

Does

1-20

are

dismissed.

See

Order

Setting

Status

10

(Pretrial

11

(indicating that if justification for “Doe” defendant allegations not

12

provided Doe defendants would be dismissed).

Scheduling)

13

Conference

filed

March

16,

2011,

at

2

n.2

SERVICE OF LUKE EMARD

14

Plaintiff requests additional time to serve Defendant Luke

15

Emard in its Status Report, stating “Plaintiff will request service by

16

publication by August 29, 2011, if other service methods fail.” (ECF No.

17

14, 3:9-11.)

18

Therefore, Plaintiff has an extension under Rule 4(m) of the

19

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until September 16, 2011 to serve

20

Defendant Luke Emard. Plaintiff is notified that Defendant Luke Emard

21

may be dismissed as defendant in this action under Rule 4(m) unless

22

Plaintiff provides proof of service or “shows good cause for the

23

failure” to serve this defendant by September 16, 2011 in a filing due

24

no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 19, 2011.

25

CONTINUANCE OF STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

26

The status conference scheduled for hearing on August 1, 2011,

27

is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 30, 2012. A status

28

report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference
2

1

in which Plaintiff is required to explain the status of the default

2

proceedings.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 20, 2011

5
6
7

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3