Filed: Aug. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 265, 266 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . On June 30, 2016, defendants and counter-claimants Rearden, LLC, et. al. ("Rearden") filed their second motion for an entry of default judgment against counter-defendant Shenzhenshi Haiticheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. ("SHST") for its failure to participate in discovery. 1 ECF No. 215. On July 21, 2016, Judge Kim issued a report recommending that this Court enter default judgment against SHST. ECF No. 252.
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Dkt. Nos. 265, 266 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . On June 30, 2016, defendants and counter-claimants Rearden, LLC, et. al. ("Rearden") filed their second motion for an entry of default judgment against counter-defendant Shenzhenshi Haiticheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. ("SHST") for its failure to participate in discovery. 1 ECF No. 215. On July 21, 2016, Judge Kim issued a report recommending that this Court enter default judgment against SHST. ECF No. 252. ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 265, 266
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
On June 30, 2016, defendants and counter-claimants Rearden, LLC, et. al. ("Rearden") filed their second motion for an entry of default judgment against counter-defendant Shenzhenshi Haiticheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. ("SHST") for its failure to participate in discovery.1 ECF No. 215. On July 21, 2016, Judge Kim issued a report recommending that this Court enter default judgment against SHST. ECF No. 252.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), SHST had fourteen days from the date of Judge Kim's recommendation to file objections to Judge Kim's report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). By the Court's calculations, SHST's objections were due on August 4, 2016. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). The Court reminded the parties of that fact at the hearing on August 4, 2016. Tr. of Proceedings (August 4, 2016), ECF No. 264 at 3:10-12. However, SHST did not file its objections until August 8, 2016.2 ECF No. 265. Accordingly, the Court orders SHST to show cause why the motion should not be stricken as untimely.
A written response to this order to show cause must be filed by August 16, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. SHST has since been restored as the plaintiff in this action by virtue of this Court's recent order setting aside the substitution order.
2. SHST properly filed its objections as a "Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge." Civil L.R. 72-3. SHST also filed a concurrent motion to augment the record. ECF No. 266.
