Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01189/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01189-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1

 Case No. 06 CV 1189-LAB (POR)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICK LAKE, dba MACHINERY

BUILDERS CONSULTING, a Sole

Proprietorship,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEAGULL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, INC.,

a Florida Corporation; WOLFGANG

UNGER, an Individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 06 CV 1189-LAB (POR)

ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT IN

FAVOR OF DEFENDANT

WOLFGANG UNGER

SEAGULL OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, INC.,

a Florida Corporation, 

Cross-Complainant,

vs.

RICK LAKE dba MACHINERY

BUILDERS CONSULTING, a Sole

Proprietorship,

Cross-Defendant.

This cause came before the Court on Defendant Wolfgang Unger’s motion for summary

judgment, which the Court granted on July 16, 2007. On August 31, 2007, Defendant 

Unger

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 42 Filed 09/07/07 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

2

 Case No. 06 CV 1189-LAB (POR)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

/ / /

 moved ex parte for entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), and Plaintiff has not opposed

the request.

Pursuant to ¶ 8 of the Court’s standing order, any ex parte motion not opposed within

two days may be considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground.

With the grant of summary judgment, no claims to which Defendant Unger is a party

remain in this case. The Court determines there is no just reason to delay the entry of judgment

as to Defendant Unger.

The Court therefore ORDERS that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Wolfgang

Unger. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and Civil Local Rule 54.1., Defendant Unger is

entitled to costs. Although Defendant Unger included attorneys’ fees in his proposed judgment,

he did not request them by motion, as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(A); thus, the

Court does not award them at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: September 7, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01189-LAB-POR Document 42 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2