Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01339-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

MARILYN DILLARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:08-cv-01339 FCD KJN PS

v. ORDER

VICTORIA M. MORTON 

ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

 

RUTH GALTIERI-CARLSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:08-cv-01777 FCD KJN PS

v. ORDER

VICTORIA M. MORTON 

ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

Presently set for hearing on April 22, 2010 is plaintiffs’ Application for Default

Judgment By Court, which according to the court’s docket was filed only in the matter of Dillard,

et al. v. Victoria M. Morton Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-cv-1339 FCD KJN PS (Dkt. No.

44.) The court’s docket does not reflect that plaintiffs in the matter of Galtieri-Carlson, et al. v.

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 48 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Galtieri-Carlson matter was reassigned to the undersigned from United States 1

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows by order (Dkt. No. 33).

 Although the Dillard Application states that notice of the application was served on 2

defendants who have appeared, the related certificate of service filed with the court indicates that

plaintiffs only served their application on now-dismissed defendant Victoria M. Morton, an

individual. (Compare Dillard, No. 2:08-cv-1339 FCD KJN PS, Dkt. No. 44 at ¶ 2, with Dkt.

2

Victoria M. Morton Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 2:08-cv-1777 FCD KJN PS, separately filed an

application for default judgment in that case.1

As noted in the court’s Related Case Order entered in both matters, the Related

Case Order did not effectuate a consolidation of the two cases. (See Dillard, No. 2:08-cv-1339

FCD KJN PS, Dkt. No. 14; Galtieri-Carlson, No. 2:08-cv-1777 FCD KJN PS, Dkt. No. 7.)

Accordingly, no application for default judgment is currently pending in the Galtieri-Carlson

matter. However, plaintiffs in the Galtieri-Carlson matter apparently intended to move for

default judgment in that matter through the Application for Default Judgment By Court filed only

in the Dillard matter (“Dillard Application”). It appears from the caption of the Dillard

Application, which contains case information for both cases, that the Galtieri-Carlson plaintiffs

also intended to move for default judgment but errantly failed to file their motion in the correct

matter. Because no prejudice would befall the remaining defendants in either action, the

undersigned will deem the Dillard Application filed in the Galtieri-Carlson matter, and the April

22, 2010 hearing will remain on the court’s calendar. 

In anticipation of the April 22, 2010 hearing, the undersigned notes that certain

entity defendants against which plaintiffs seek default judgment previously appeared through

counsel in both the Dillard and Galtieri-Carlson matters. (See Dillard, No. 2:08-cv-1339 FCD

KJN PS, Dkt. No. 22; Galtieri-Carlson, No. 2:08-cv-1777 FCD KJN PS, Dkt. No. 21.) As a

result, plaintiffs in both actions are required to serve notice of their application for default

judgment on those previously appearing parties within seven (7) days of the hearing. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 55(b)(2). Failure to do so may have adverse consequences for plaintiffs’ default 2

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 48 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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

No. 45.) It is unclear from the record whether plaintiffs have otherwise served notice of the

application for default judgment on the entity defendants.

3

judgment to the extent it might be granted. See, e.g., Civic Ctr. Square, Inc. v. Ford (In re

Roxford Foods), 12 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that failure to provide notice when

required is “a serious procedural irregularity” that usually justifies setting aside a default

judgment or reversing a default judgment on appeal). 

Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Application for Default Judgment By Court shall be deemed filed in

Galtieri-Carlson, No. 2:08-cv-1777 FCD KJN PS. 

2. The hearing presently set for April 22, 2010 will remain on calendar.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this order in the following matters:

Dillard, No. 2:08-cv-1339 FCD KJN PS, and Galtieri-Carlson, No. 2:08-cv-1777 FCD KJN PS.

4. Plaintiffs in both actions are required to serve notice of their application

for default judgment on those previously appearing parties within seven (7) days of the April 22,

2010 hearing, and file a proof of service with the court. 

DATED: April 12, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 48 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3