Fitlife Brands, Inc. v. Supreme Sports Enhancement, L.L.C.

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - On or before January 15, 2016, Plaintiff must either move to dismiss this case voluntarily or seek a default judgment against Defendant. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution without further notice. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA FITLIFE BRANDS, INC., Plaintiff, 8:14CV241 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUPREME SPORTS ENHANCEMENT, L.L.C. Defendant. Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant Supreme Sports Enhancement, L.L.C. (“Supreme Sports”) on August 15, 2014. (Filing No. 1). After initially being represented by legal counsel, Supreme Sports’ attorney withdrew from the case. (Filing No. 12). The court informed Supreme Sports that a Limited Liability Company cannot proceed without legal representation and the undersigned magistrate judge instructed Supreme Sports to have new counsel appear in this matter. (Filing No. 21). Defendant was further advised failure to have legal counsel appear on its behalf may lead to an entry of default and/or a default judgment against it. (Id.) No new counsel appeared on behalf of Supreme Sports. And, at the direction of the Hon. John M. Gerrard, the Clerk of the Court entered default against the Defendant on April 2, 2015. (Filing No. 26). Since that date, Plaintiff has not taken any action in this case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: On or before January 15, 2016, Plaintiff either move to dismiss this case voluntarily or seek a default judgment against Defendant. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case for want of prosecution without further notice. Dated this 15th day of December, 2015 BY THE COURT: s/ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate 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?