Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02393-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eddie Willie Taylor, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The United States; the U.S. Internal

Revenue Service; the U.S. Department of

Education; the Department of the

Treasury; Kroll Factual Data Bureau;

Experian Information Solutions, Inc.;

Equifax Credit Information Services,

Inc.; Trans Union LLC; Landsafe Credit

Inc.; Lamson Junior College; Arizona

Education Loan Marketing Corporation;

and Southwest Student Services

Corporation,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2393-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 16, 2010. Dkt. #51. Motions to dismiss

have been filed by Defendants Trans Union LLC (Dkt. #52), Landsafe Credit Inc. (Dkt. #55),

and Kroll Factual Data Inc. (Dkt. #57). Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time

for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have until

June 11, 2010 to file a response to each motion.

Plaintiff is reminded (see Dkt. #47) that he must become familiar with, and follow,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at

the following Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 64 Filed 06/01/10 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

- 2 -

Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office.

Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an unrepresented party’s

failure to respond to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion

and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff is advised that

if he does not file responses to the motions to dismiss (Dkt. ##52, 55, 57) by June 11, 2010,

the Court will summarily grant the motions. Plaintiff is again warned (see Dkt. #47) that if

he fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the

Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall have until June 11, 2010 to file responses to the motions to

dismiss (Dkt. ##52, 55, 57).

2. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motions to dismiss

if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02393-DGC Document 64 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 2