Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02831/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02831-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hewlett-Packard Company
Defendant
Stefan M. Prystawik
Plaintiff
Arnim Voelkner
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEFAN M. PRYSTAWIK and 

ARNIM VOELKNER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-02831 WHA

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTION DATED

DECEMBER 18, 2013

Pro se plaintiffs Stefan M. Prystawik and Arnim Voelkner have filed an objection dated

December 18, 2013 (Dkt. No. 24). The objection is directed at the report and recommendation

filed on November 19, 2013, to dismiss this matter because of plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve

defendant. The fourteen-day period for objecting to this report and recommendation, however,

has come and gone. In fact, an order dated December 6, 2013 adopted the report and

recommendation, with judgment entered that same day. Although plaintiffs’ objection states that

“at no time so far in these proceedings have Plaintiffs received ANY copies of filed documents,”

the report and recommendation was sent to defendants’ address — 332 S Michigan Ave., Suite

1032, Chicago, IL 60604 — the same address listed on plaintiffs’ objection (see Dkt. Nos. 18,

24). Accordingly, the objection is untimely and does not affect the December 6 order and

judgment entered here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-02831-WHA Document 26 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 1