U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc. et al, No. 1:2010cv00549 - Document 54 (D. Haw. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 51 . Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 07/18/2012. (eps) -- That Default Judgment Be Entered Against Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications will be served by first class mail on 07/19/2012
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc. et al Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HAWAII HEALTHCARE ) PROFESSIONALS, INC., a/k/a ) HAWAII PROFESSIONAL ) HOMECARE SERVICES, Inc., ) CAROLYN FRUTOZ-DE HARNE ) a/k/a CAROLYN FRUTOZ, and ) Does 2-10 Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________ ) CIV. NO. 10-00549 ACK-BMK ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Findings and Recommendation having been filed and served on all parties on May 10, 2012 and May 11, 2012,1 and no objections having been filed by any 1 On June 29, 2012, the Court issued an Electronic Order noting that there was a question as to whether Defendant Carolyn Frutoz-De Harne was served with a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation That Default Judgment Be Entered Against Defendants, which was filed on 5/10/2012 (the “F&R”), because the envelope containing the F&R that was mailed to Defendant Frutoz-De Harne was returned as undeliverable. (See Doc. No. 53.) Consequently, on June 29, 2012, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to re-send a copy of the F&R to Defendant Frutoz-De Harne via First Class Mail at a different address at which Plaintiff had previously successfully served Defendant Frutoz-De Harne. See Id.; Doc. No. 48. In the event that Defendant did not receive the initial mailing, the Court granted Defendant Frutoz-De Harne 15 days from the date of mailing to file a response to the F&R prior to the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendants. Id. The Court observes that 15 days have elapsed, the mailing has not been returned as undeliverable, and Defendant Frutoz-De Harne has failed to file a response to the F&R. Dockets.Justia.com party, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the “Findings and Recommendation That Default Judgment Be Entered Against Defendants” are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 18, 2012. ________________________________ Alan C. Kay Sr. United States District Judge U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Hawaii Healthcare Professionals, Inc., et. al, Civ. No. 10-00549 ACKBMK: Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. 2 The Court observes that the Findings and Recommendation erroneously states that the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment was held on April 19, 2011. In fact, the hearing was held on April 19, 2012. See Doc. No. 49.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
