Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Kimbrell v. Twitter Inc., 18-cv-04144-PJH. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180910687 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 13 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . On August 31, 2018, plaintiff Jody Kimbrell filed a motion for default judgment against defendant Twitter Inc. For the following reason, the court DENIES that motion as unripe. On August 30, 2018, plaintiff filed an application for entry of default. Dkt. 10. On the same day, the Clerk of Court instructed plaintiff to refile the application as a motion for entry of default. The next day, rather
More

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 13

On August 31, 2018, plaintiff Jody Kimbrell filed a motion for default judgment against defendant Twitter Inc. For the following reason, the court DENIES that motion as unripe. On August 30, 2018, plaintiff filed an application for entry of default. Dkt. 10. On the same day, the Clerk of Court instructed plaintiff to refile the application as a motion for entry of default. The next day, rather than following the Clerk's instruction, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against Twitter. Dkt. 13. Though plaintiff never refiled her motion for entry of default, on September 5, 2018, the Clerk of Court declined to enter default against Twitter. Dkt. 17. Accordingly, because no default has been entered, plaintiff's motion for default judgment is not ripe and must be DENIED. Arnold v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. 18-CV-02982-KAW, 2018 WL 3777136, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2018) ("Before a plaintiff can seek default judgment under Federal Rule of 55(b), "the clerk must enter the party's default." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).").

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