Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-01839-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

[Proposed] Order on Holloway’s Mot re Default Case No. CV12-01839-EJD (Related to 12-02729-EJD and 15-00177-EJD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Vincent P. Hurley #111215

Amanda Cohen #243946

Ryan Thompson #292281

LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY

A Professional Corporation

28 Seascape Village

Aptos, California 95003

Telephone: (831) 661-4800

Facsimile: (831) 661-4804

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MARBLE BRIDGE FUNDING GROUP, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARBLE BRIDGE FUNDING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATURE’S OWN PHARMACY, LLC, et al; 

and DOES 1-30, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV12-01839-EJD

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING

HOLLOWAY’S MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

MARBLE BRIDGE FUNDING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EULER HERMES AMERICAN CREDIT 

INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Related To:

Case No. CV12-02729-EJD

MARBLE BRIDGE FUNDING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LIQUID CAPITAL EXCHANGE, INC., 

LIQUID CAPITAL OF COLORADO, SOL 

ROTER, an individual, and BRUCE DAWSON, 

an individual.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Related To:

Case No. 4:15-CV-00177-YGR

Case 5:12-cv-01839-EJD Document 176 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

[Proposed] Order on Holloway’s Mot re Default Case No. CV12-01839-EJD (Related to 12-02729-EJD and 15-00177-EJD)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Having considered the “Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and 

Motion to Dismiss Non-Party” submitted by MARSHA KAY HOLLOWAY, and the response

thereto submitted by Plaintiff MARBLE BRIDGE FUNDING GROUP, INC., titled “Opposition 

to Holloway’s Motion for Relief from Entry of Default”, the Court finds as follows:

Holloway’s motion to be dismissed as a non-party is DENIED. Holloway’s Opposition 

and Motion fail to demonstrate good cause for setting aside entry of default, as it fails to set forth 

any facts evidencing Holloway’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect in 

defending her interests in this matter.

Dated: _______________

By: ____________________________________

 JUDGE EDWARD J. DAVILA

May 19, 2015

Case 5:12-cv-01839-EJD Document 176 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2