Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Kaur v. City of Lodi, 2:14-cv-00828-GEB-AC. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151116961 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 12, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT MILES SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE & FOR FILING OF AN ANSWER BY DEFENDANT MILES SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE TO THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sukhwinder Kaur, Kulbinder Kaur Sohota, and Sarabjit Singh Shergill (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Miles Scott Bratton and Adam Lockie (collectively, "Officer Defendants") request that the Court
More

STIPULATION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT MILES SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE & FOR FILING OF AN ANSWER BY DEFENDANT MILES SCOTT BRATTON AND ADAM LOCKIE TO THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sukhwinder Kaur, Kulbinder Kaur Sohota, and Sarabjit Singh Shergill (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Miles Scott Bratton and Adam Lockie (collectively, "Officer Defendants") request that the Court set aside the entry of default against Officer Defendants, and permit Officer Defendants to file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On July 1, 2015, the currently-operable complaint, the Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 88, was filed.

On July 15, 2015, Officer Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a single claim from the Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 89. That motion was opposed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 95.

On September 16, 2015, the Court denied Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 100.

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiffs sought entry of default against Officer Defendants for their non-compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A). ECF No. 103.

On October 1, 2015, the Clerk of the Court entered Plaintiffs' requested default against Officer Defendants for their "fail[ure] to appear, plead or answer [Plaintiffs'] complaint within the time allowed by law. . ." ECF No. 104.

On October 6, 2015, Officer Defendants filed a motion to set aside the Clerk of the Court's entry of default. ECF No. 106. That motion was opposed by Plaintiffs. ECF No. 109. Officer Defendants filed a reply brief on November 9, 2015. ECF No. 115.

STIPULATION

Plaintiffs and Officer Defendants hereby request and stipulate that:

1. the Court set aside the entry of default, ECF No. 104, currently entered against Officer Defendants; and

2. Officer Defendants file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, it is hereby ordered that:

1. the current entry of default against Officer Defendants, ECF No. 104, be set aside; and

2. Officer Defendants file an Answer to the Third Amended Complaint on or before November 23, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer