MALENKO v. HANDRAHAN
ORDER ON PRO SE MOTION denying 60 (Document sealed from public view) SEALED MOTION to Vacate Order and/or Reconsider filed by LORI HANDRAHAN By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
) Docket no. 2:11-cv-250-GZS
ORDER ON PRO SE MOTION
Before the Court is the Sealed Pro Se Motion filed by Defendant Lori Handrahan on August
21, 2012 (ECF No. 60).1 Given the procedural posture of this case, the Court treats the Motion as a
motion seeking to set aside default or seeking reconsideration of the Court’s June 28, 2012 Order
Entering Default (ECF No. 53). Having reviewed the Motion, along with 136 pages of attached
documents, the Court DENIES the Motion. Nothing in the materials submitted provides good cause
for Defendant’s repeated failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders. This failure prompted the
Court to enter default on June 28, 2012. The Motion fails to explain why Defendant has waited
until this late date to have her first direct contact with the Court regarding this case. Additionally,
nothing in the Motion papers leads the Court to believe that Defendant would in fact appear and
defend this case on the merits. Rather, the Court continues to believe that Defendant’s default is
willful. While Defendant remains focused on a variety of other allegations that stretch well beyond
this case, this Court must remain focused on a just and speedy determination of the claims presented
in this civil action, which has been ready for trial since May 2012.
Therefore, this case shall remain set for a damages hearing on August 31, 2012 at 2 P.M.
with any exhibits and witness lists to be filed with the Court by August 24, 2012. Defendant is free
to appear at the hearing in-person or through counsel.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 22nd day of August, 2012.
The Court has sealed the Motion and its attachments because of multiple references to a minor by name.
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?