Manning v. AIS Services

Filing 19

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; DENYING ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT. Plaintiff's response shall be filed no later than October 7, 2010. Motion for entry of default judgment denied as premature. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 9/24/2010. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2010)

Manning v. AIS Services

Doc. 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. AIS SERVICES, Defendant / On September 7, 2010, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") directing plaintiff Tiera Manning to show cause, in writing and no later than September 21, 2010, why the above-titled action should not be dismissed in light of plaintiff's failure to appear as ordered at the Case Management Conference scheduled for September 3, 2010. On September 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a document titled "Motion for Entry of Default Judgment" ("Motion"). Said filing is not a sufficient response to the OSC. Irrespective of whether defendant AIS Services has failed to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint within the time prescribed by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff was required to comply with the Court's orders. In particular, by Order filed June 24, 2010, plaintiff was required to file, by August 27, 2010, a Case Management Statement and, unless excused by the Court before the date of the Case Management Conference, to appear in person at such proceeding. Nothing in plaintiff's Motion addresses her failure to TIERA MANNING, Plaintiff, No. C 10-2209 MMC ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED; DENYING ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

comply with those Court-ordered obligations. Nevertheless, the Court will provide plaintiff one further opportunity to respond to the OSC. Plaintiff's response, which must be in the form of a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, shall be filed no later than October 7, 2010. Additionally, the Court notes that plaintiff's Motion is premature, as there has been no motion for entry of default, let alone entry thereof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (providing for entry of default by clerk); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) (providing for entry of default judgment). Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2