Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers et al v. Yubacon, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER Striking Defendants AM Pacific Engineering and MV2 Energy, Inc.'s Answers [Docket Nos. 20, 21]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 04/24/2014. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
PENSION PLAN,

12

Plaintiff(s),

13

YUBACON INC,

15

ORDER STRIKING ANSWERS

v.

14

No. C-12-04738 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiffs Pension Plan for Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers et al. filed this

18

Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) action in September 2012

19

against Defendants Yubacon, Inc., Old Hatchery, Inc., Michael L. Murray, AM Pacific Engineering

20

(“AM”), and MV2 Energy, Inc. (“MV2”). Defendant AM and MV2 filed answers to the complaint

21

in January 2013. [Docket Nos. 20, 21.] Plaintiffs dismissed Defendants Murray, Yubacon, Inc., and

22

Old Hatchery, Inc. in July 2013. [Docket Nos. 36, 42.]

23

Defendants AM and MV2 were represented by law firm Salamirad Morrow. On March 18,

24

2014, the court granted the firm’s motion to withdraw. [Docket No. 70 (Order on Mot. to

25

Withdraw).] In the order, the court noted that “Defendants [AM and MV2], who are not natural

26

persons, may only appear in this Court through counsel,” citing Civil Local Rule 3-9(b). (Order on

27

Mot. to Withdraw 2.) The court ordered Defendants AM and MV2 to file substitutions of counsel

28

1

by no later than April 18, 2014, and warned Defendants that failure to do so by the deadline could

2

result in their answers being stricken. (Order on Mot. to Withdraw 4.)

3

Defendants AM and MV2 have not filed substitutions of counsel. Therefore, the court

4

strikes AM and MV2’s answers, Docket Nos. 20 and 21. The court invites Plaintiffs to seek AM

5

and MV2’s default and to proceed with a motion for default judgment, should Plaintiffs choose to do

6

so. In addition, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 65) is denied on the grounds

7

that there is no answering party.

8
9

Pursuant to the order permitting Salamirad Morrow’s withdrawal and requiring the firm to
continue to serve on Defendants AM and MV2 all papers in this case, service of this order on

11

reasonable efforts to ensure that AM and MV2 receive actual notice of this order as promptly as

12

possible.

17

onna
Judge D

M. Ryu

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
E

H

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

RN

R NIA

Dated: April 24, 2014

LI

16

A

15

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

S
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

14

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

13

RT

For the Northern District of California

Salamirad Morrow shall constitute service on AM and MV2, and Salamirad Morrow shall make all

NO

United States District Court

10

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C