Larson v. Ching
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT - Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 3/3/09. Objections to F&R due by 3/17/2009 (emt, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII LONNIE E. LARSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) DARWIN CHING, Director of ) the Department of Labor, ) State of Hawaii ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________ ) CIVIL NO. 08-00537 SOM-KSC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff Lonnie Larson filed a Request to Enter Default Judgment. The Court
finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. For the reasons discussed
below, the Court DENIES this Request. An entry of default must precede a motion for default judgment. See Brooks v. U.S., 29 F. Supp. 2d
613, 618 (N.D. Cal. 1997)("The entry of default judgment is a two-part process; default judgment may be entered only upon the entry of default by the Clerk of
Larson asserts that the Clerk of the
Court entered default against Darwin Ching on February 4, 2009. The record, however, does not reflect an Therefore, Larson's Request to Enter Accordingly, the Court
entry of default.
Default Judgment is premature.
FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion be DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, March 3, 2009.
_____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge
CV08-00537 SOM-KSC; LARSON V. CHING; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT
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?