Abokasem et al v. Royal Indian Raj Int'l Corp. et al
Filing
144
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS MANOJ BENJAMIN AND ANJULA BENJAMIN AND FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST THEM AND FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL REMAINING DEFENDANTS; VACATING HEARING. Plaintif fs are directed to serve by mail the appearing defendants at their address of record and to notice the motion for a date not less than 35 days after such service. The hearing, currently scheduled for August 17, 2012, is vacated. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 10, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
MOHAMED ABOKASEM, et al.
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
No. C 10-1781 MMC
v.
ROYAL INDIAN RAJ INTERNATIONAL
CORP., et al.
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
/
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS MANOJ
BENJAMIN AND ANJULA BENJAMIN
AND FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AGAINST THEM AND FOR ENTRY OF
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST ALL
REMAINING DEFENDANTS; VACATING
HEARING
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Motion to Strike Answer of Defendants Manoj
19
Benjamin and Anjula Benjamin and for Entry of Default Against Them; and for Entry of
20
Default Against All Remaining Defendants,” filed July 10, 2012.
21
In the motion, plaintiffs state they have not attempted service of the motion on the
22
defendants who have appeared in the above-titled action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)
23
(providing “[i]f the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared
24
personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with
25
written notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing”). Plaintiffs do not
26
dispute that defendants Manoj Benjamin, Anjula Benjamin, Royal Indian Raj International
27
Corp., Royal Indian Raj International Holdings Corp., Royal Indian Raj International Real
28
Estate Fund Ltd., and Royal Garden Villas Resort Corp. (collectively “the Appearing
1
Defendants”) have “appeared” in the above-titled action, but argue further notice is not
2
necessary because, according to plaintiffs, “the record makes clear that all of these
3
defendants have since abandoned their defense.” (See Mot. at 7:23-8:1.) Plaintiffs seek “a
4
ruling from the Court that no further notice is required under Rule 55(b)(2)” (see id.) and, in
5
the alternative, request the Court “specify how such service is to be accomplished” (see id.
6
at 8:1-3). Plaintiffs cite to no legal authority providing an exception to the notice
7
requirement set forth in Rule 55.
8
Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to serve by mail the Appearing
9
Defendants at their address of record and to notice the motion for a date not less than 35
10
11
12
13
days after such service. See Civil L.R. 7-2(a).
In light of the above, the hearing, currently scheduled for August 17, 2012, is hereby
VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: August 10, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
