Prystawik et al v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 26

ORDER RE 24 PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION DATED DECEMBER 18, 2013. Signed by Judge Alsup on 1/3/2014. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/3/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 Plaintiffs, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 STEFAN M. PRYSTAWIK and ARNIM VOELKNER, 12 13 14 No. C 13-02831 WHA v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION DATED DECEMBER 18, 2013 Defendant. / 15 16 Pro se plaintiffs Stefan M. Prystawik and Arnim Voelkner have filed an objection dated 17 December 18, 2013 (Dkt. No. 24). The objection is directed at the report and recommendation 18 filed on November 19, 2013, to dismiss this matter because of plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve 19 defendant. The fourteen-day period for objecting to this report and recommendation, however, 20 has come and gone. In fact, an order dated December 6, 2013 adopted the report and 21 recommendation, with judgment entered that same day. Although plaintiffs’ objection states that 22 “at no time so far in these proceedings have Plaintiffs received ANY copies of filed documents,” 23 the report and recommendation was sent to defendants’ address — 332 S Michigan Ave., Suite 24 1032, Chicago, IL 60604 — the same address listed on plaintiffs’ objection (see Dkt. Nos. 18, 25 24). Accordingly, the objection is untimely and does not affect the December 6 order and 26 judgment entered here. 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 3, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?