Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00678/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00678-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORA PULIDO,

Plaintiff, CIV S-05-0678 FCD JFM PS

v.

UNITRIN, INC., ET AL., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendants’ October 20, 2005 motion to dismiss came on regularly for hearing on

December 8, 2005. Plaintiff Nora Pulido appeared in propria persona. Peter Meshot made a

special appearance for defendants. After hearing from plaintiff and counsel, defendants’ motion

to dismiss was held in abeyance for sixty days and plaintiff was granted an extension of time to

accomplish service of process on the proper defendants to this action. (See December 15, 2005

Order.) On April 13, 2006, this matter was continued for further status conference on May 18,

2006, to allow plaintiff time to retain counsel. Plaintiff Nora Pulido appeared in propria persona. 

Peter Meshot appeared for defendant Kemper. Joel Velazquez appeared at the hearing, but had

not filed a responsive pleading.

Upon review of the motion and the documents in support and opposition, and the

entire file of this matter, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel and good cause

Case 2:05-cv-00678-FCD-JFM Document 41 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff has accomplished service of process on Kemper Auto and Home, which

filed an answer on February 15, 2006. In light of that answer, Kemper’s motion to dismiss will

be deemed withdrawn. 

As noted in this court’s December 15, 2005 order, Unitrin, Inc. was not the proper

defendant named herein. (Id. at 2.) The insurance company set forth on a document dated July

29, 2003 and entitled “Premium Refund,” was Unitrin Direct, P.O. Box 9602, Vista, California.” 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, defendants’

motion to dismiss Unitrin, Inc. should be granted.

Plaintiff has filed no declaration attesting to service of process on Unitrin Direct

Insurance Company. (December 15, 2005 Order at 3.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(m), the court may dismiss an action where service of summons is not made within

120 days after the filing of the complaint. In the order setting status conference, filed April 7,

2005, plaintiff was cautioned that this action may be dismissed if service was not timely

completed. By order filed December 15, 2005, plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days in

which to accomplish service of process on defendants. 

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a declaration attesting to service of process on

Kemper Auto and Home Insurance on February 1, 2006. However, no declaration concerning

service of process on defendant Unitrin Direct Insurance Company has been filed. This action

was filed April 7, 2005 and plaintiff has not yet served defendant Unitrin Direct Insurance

Company with summons, despite the fact that the court provided plaintiff with its registered

agent for service of process in the December 15, 2005 order. (See Order at 3.).

By this court’s December 15, 2005 order, plaintiff was cautioned that failure to

timely comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Plaintiff has not responded to that order and has apparently made no effort to serve defendant

Unitrin Direct Insurance Company with summons. Accordingly, defendant Unitrin Direct

Case 2:05-cv-00678-FCD-JFM Document 41 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Insurance Company should also be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

During the April 13, 2006 status conference, plaintiff stated she intended to file a

response to the counter claim but requested additional time to retain a lawyer. Mr. Velazquez

stated he would be filing a responsive pleading. However, neither plaintiff nor Mr. Velazquez

have, to date, filed a counter claim response or responsive pleading, respectively. Service of

process was personally accomplished on Mr. Velazquez on March 25, 2006. (See Docket No.

34.) Good cause appearing, defendant’s April 21, 2006 request for entry of default will be

granted. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to enter clerk’s default as to Joel Velazquez and

plaintiff Pulido.

Although plaintiff Pulido stated she had retained an attorney, no attorney has

appeared on her behalf or filed a substitution of attorney confirming representation.

In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Kemper’s October 20, 2005 amended motion to dismiss is deemed

withdrawn; 

2. Defendant’s April 21, 2006 request for entry of default is granted; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter clerk’s default as to Joel Velazquez; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter clerk’s default as to plaintiff

Pulido’s failure to reply to the counter-claim; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on crossdefendant Joel Velazquez, 13 Meadow View Drive, Colusa, California 95932.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The October 20, 2005 amended motion to dismiss filed by defendant Unitrin,

Inc. be granted; and

2. Defendant Unitrin Direct Insurance Company be dismissed from this action. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

Case 2:05-cv-00678-FCD-JFM Document 41 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 23, 2006.

001; pulido.4mfr

Case 2:05-cv-00678-FCD-JFM Document 41 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 4