JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. MANNOR, 2:11-cv-01426 WBS KJN. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120112b95
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is plaintiff's counsel's request for permission to appear telephonically at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment. 1 Plaintiff's counsel's request is granted, subject to plaintiff's counsel's compliance with the requirements set forth below. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's counsel's request to appear by telephone at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment, wh
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the court is plaintiff's counsel's request for permission to appear telephonically at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment. 1 Plaintiff's counsel's request is granted, subject to plaintiff's counsel's compliance with the requirements set forth below. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's counsel's request to appear by telephone at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment, whi..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiff's counsel's request for permission to appear telephonically at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment.1 Plaintiff's counsel's request is granted, subject to plaintiff's counsel's compliance with the requirements set forth below. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's counsel's request to appear by telephone at the hearing on plaintiff's application for default judgment, which is set for January 12, 2012 (Dkt. No. 16), is granted.
2. Plaintiff's counsel shall promptly contact the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy, Matt Caspar, at (916) 930-4187, and provide Mr. Caspar with the number for a dedicated, hard telephone line at which the court may contact plaintiff's counsel at the time of the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Although plaintiff submitted an electronic proposed order on January 10, 2012, that proposed order was in an unusable document format and did not conform to the court's local rules.
Source: Leagle
