All Points Capital Corp. v. Arhitectural Metal Products, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER Vacating Hearing re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF P OINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by All Points Capital Corp. (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALL POINTS CAPITAL CORP, Plaintiff, v ARCHITECTURAL METAL PRODUCTS, INC, PACIFIC ROLLFORMING, LLC, RIDGETOP HAWAII, INC, RIDGETOP ROOFING AND GUTTER, INC, ROBERT OLLMAN, BORIS GOKHMAN, VLADIMIR SHUK and TODD BEASLEY Defendants. / Plaintiff All Points Capital Corporation filed this action on September 19, 2008. Doc #1. On November 11, 2008, No C-08-04394 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA plaintiff filed proof of service on seven of the eight defendants listed in the complaint: Boris Gokhman, Vladimir Shuk, Todd Beasley, Ridgetop Hawaii, Pacific Rollforming LLC, Architectural Metal Products and Ridgetop Roofing and Gutter. Doc ## 10-16. Plaintiff has not filed proof of service on defendant Robert Ollman. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment or alternatively for summary adjudication on April 10, 2009. Doc #31. Pursuant to Civil L R 7-3(a), defendants had until April 30, 2009 to file a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion. None of the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition or a statement of nonopposition. The hearing set for May 21 on plaintiff's motion is VACATED. Defendants shall serve and file a memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion not later than May 28; failure to comply will be deemed grounds to grant summary judgment against the seven defendants that have been served. No hearing or oral argument on the motion shall be conducted without further order of the court. Under FRCP 4(m), "[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court ---- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff ---- must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Because more than 120 days have passed since plaintiff filed this action and there is no record that Ollman has been served, plaintiff IS DIRECTED to file proof of service on Ollman or show good cause for the failure to serve Ollman not later than May 28. If plaintiff fails to comply, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice against Ollman pursuant to FRCP 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge 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?