Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02077/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02077-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT; DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; SETTING HEARING DATE

FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND REMOVING CASE FROM ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7-11-06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHILLIP J. KRONZER FOUNDATION FOR

RELIGIOUS RESEARCH and PHILLIP J.

KRONZER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHRISTINE DOLAN, THE GLOBAL

COALITION TO END HUMAN

TRAFFICKING NOW, and DOES ONE

THROUGH TWENTY-FIVE,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02077 RMW

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

DEFAULT; DISCHARGING ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE; SETTING HEARING DATE

FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND

REMOVING CASE FROM ELECTRONIC

FILING PROGRAM

[Re Docket Nos. 69, 73, 74, 77]

Plaintiffs Phillip J. Kronzer Foundation for Religious Research and Phillip J. Kronzer

(collectively "Kronzer") filed this action against Christine Dolan and the Global Coalition to End

Human Trafficking Now ("GCEHTN") on May 20, 2005. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss. 

On October 20, 2005, the district court judge then presiding over the action vacated the hearing

dates on the motions to dismiss and referred the case here for determination of whether it was related

to another previously pending before this court, Case No. 04-01462. 

On October 31, 2005, this court determined that the present action was indeed related to the

prior one. For five months, no party took any action. On May 31, 2006, this court ordered Kronzer

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 83 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Kronzer admitted in a subsequent filing that "Document 68 does not specifically order

defendants to renotice their motions to dismiss." Docket no. 82 ¶ 7.

 2 Dolan's filing appears to have been typed on a word processor rather than a typewriter, and

she lists her AOL e-mail address as part of her contact information. The court also finds incredible

Dolan's assertions that she received neither the October 31, 2005 nor May 31, 2006 orders. See

docket no. 77 ¶ 4. Each order indicates that court staff mailed it to Dolan at her present address of

"3421 Dent Place, NW, Washington, DC 20007." Compare docket no. 68 at 3; docket no. 69 at 2

with docket no. 77 at 1. However, her receipt of those orders is not critical at this juncture.

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT; DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; SETTING HEARING DATE

FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND REMOVING CASE FROM ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 2

to show cause why this action should be not dismissed for failure to prosecute. In response, Kronzer

filed a motion for default judgment against the defendants. In support of this motion, Kronzer

stated:

On October 31, 2005 Judge Whyte signed the Related Case Order and further ordered

that any case management conference will be rescheduled by the Court and that any

dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re-noticed by the moving

party (Document 25 in case 5:04-cv-01462-RMW, and filed in the instant case as

Document 68).

Docket no. 73 ¶ 14. 

However, the order Kronzer refers to said no such thing;1 it merely deemed the cases related

and instructed that "future filings should have the initials RMW following the case number." Docket

no. 68 at 2. There is no basis for holding defendants in contempt of an order of the court or to enter

a default against them. Kronzer's application for entry of default is denied.

It appears from the parties' responses to the order to show cause that each side thought the

other (or the court) had a duty to act. The court will accept that neither side believed it had a duty to

act in response to this court's October 31, 2005 order. The order to show cause is therefore

discharged.

GCEHTN states that its "motion to dismiss if [sic] fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for

argument and/or decision." Docket no. 74 ¶ 10. Dolan requests a hearing date of July 21, 2006. 

Docket no. 77 ¶ 13. The motion appears fully briefed and will therefore be set for hearing on

July 21, 2006 at 9 a.m.

The court previously granted Dolan's request to be allowed to use the court's electronic filing

system. Now Dolan states that she "has no access to the efiling because she is not computer

literate."2

 Id. ¶ 1. The court orders the case removed from the electronic filing program.

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 83 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT; DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; SETTING HEARING DATE

FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND REMOVING CASE FROM ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 3

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court

1. denies Kronzer's application for default;

2. discharges the order to show cause;

3. sets the defendants' motions to dismiss for hearing on July 21, 2006; and

4. orders this case removed from the electronic filing program.

DATED: 7/10/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 83 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 DENYING APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT; DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; SETTING HEARING DATE

FOR MOTIONS TO DISMISS; AND REMOVING CASE FROM ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM—No. C-05-02077 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Jonathan Levy

Thomas Easton tom.easton@comcast.net 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jill M. Kastner jkastner@mwe.com 

Arturo Esteban Sandoval asandoval@mwe.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

A copy will be mailed to:

Christine Dolan (pro se)

3421 Dent Place, NW 

Washington, DC 20007 

Dated: 7-11-06 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02077-RMW Document 83 Filed 07/11/06 Page 4 of 4