Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00398-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WOODS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

ASSET RESOURCES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00398-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

FILE RESPONSES TO THE COMPLAINT

NO LATER THAN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER

SERVICE

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST CONCERNING IMPLEADER

Plaintiffs are proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

By order dated August 30, 2006, entered upon to the parties’

consent, Judge Oliver W. Wanger assigned this action to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including the

entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R.

Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

On December 26, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a “Response to Orders

of Honorable Sandra M. Snyder issued December 21, 2006.” The

Court notes that the orders of December 21, 2006, were rulings on

Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

In the response, Plaintiffs informs the Court that it will

not be amending the complaint, and that Plaintiff elects to

proceed solely on Plaintiff’s claim for libel. Thus, a response

Case 1:06-cv-00398-SMS Document 29 Filed 01/05/07 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

to the complaint is due no later than fifteen days after the

service of Plaintiff’s election not to amend.

Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to file

motions to attempt to implead Equifax by a date certain or to be

barred from raising the absence of Equifax. No notice of motion

or other notice of hearing was filed in connection with this

request. Therefore, the Court DISREGARDS the request without

prejudice to Plaintiffs’ raising it in connection with the

scheduling conference, which will be set by the Court by separate

order or direction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00398-SMS Document 29 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2