Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03955/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-03955-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RUBI VELAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUCHO CELLULAR, LLC., et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-3955 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER FOR

FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT ORDER

On February 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer for Failure to

Obey the Court Order (the “Motion to Strike”). No opposition was filed. However, because it was

not entirely clear from the record whether any copy of the motion was actually served on Defendants,

on April 12, 2010, the court issued an interim order (the “Interim Order”) which, among other things,

ordered Defense counsel to file a proof of service showing when he forwarded a copy of Plaintiff’s

Motion to Strike on his former clients. The Interim Order also set a deadline of April 30, 2010, for

Defendants to show cause, if any, why Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike should not be granted, their

answer stricken, default entered, and a default judgment issued against them in this matter. Pursuant

to the Interim Order, on April 13, 2010, Defense counsel filed a proof of service showing service on

Defendants themselves (by mail and email) of both Plaintiff’s original motion to strike and the

Interim Order. Defendants have not filed any response to the court’s order to show cause, if any,

Case 5:08-cv-03955-PSG Document 50 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 2
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 Because Defendants previously appeared and filed an answer (see docket no. 5), Plaintiff 1

must serve notice of the motion on Defendants. See, FED.R.CIV.PRO. 55(b)(2).

ORDER, page 2

why Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike should not be granted, their answer stricken, default entered, and a

default judgment issued against them in this matter. Based on the foregoing and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ answer is

GRANTED. The clerk of the court shall enter default against Defendants. Entry of default is

warranted based on Defendants’ failure to defend this action. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 55(a) (“When a

party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise

defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default”);

see also, e.g., IO Group, Inc. v. Jordon, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 1541263, (N.D.Cal. April 16,

2010) (default entered against defendant who failed to respond to an order to show cause why default

should not be entered based on failure to defend).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a noticed motion for entry of default

judgment by the court pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) no later than June 29, 2010 for hearing no later than

August 3, 2010. Plaintiff shall include in his motion an evidentiary showing regarding the nature of 1

work she performed for Defendants, a reasonable basis for determining the number of hours she

worked, and the amounts she was paid each pay period.

Dated: 5/28/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-03955-PSG Document 50 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2