STARNES v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, 1:12 CV 360. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20130819943
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 16, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2013
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER has come before the undersigned based upon a review of the filings in this matter and further based upon a Certification and Report of F.R.C.P. 26(f) Conference and Discovery Plan (#283). A review of the pleadings in this matter shows that the following defendants have not filed an Answer or responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint: Converse, Inc. Flowserve Corporation Flowserve US, Inc. IMO Industries, Inc. Sears, Roebuc
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge. THIS MATTER has come before the undersigned based upon a review of the filings in this matter and further based upon a Certification and Report of F.R.C.P. 26(f) Conference and Discovery Plan (#283). A review of the pleadings in this matter shows that the following defendants have not filed an Answer or responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint: Converse, Inc. Flowserve Corporation Flowserve US, Inc. IMO Industries, Inc. Sears, Roebuck..
More
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER has come before the undersigned based upon a review of the filings in this matter and further based upon a Certification and Report of F.R.C.P. 26(f) Conference and Discovery Plan (#283). A review of the pleadings in this matter shows that the following defendants have not filed an Answer or responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint:
Converse, Inc.
Flowserve Corporation
Flowserve US, Inc.
IMO Industries, Inc.
Sears, Roebuck and Co.
A further review shows that various defendants have been voluntarily dismissed, but are still reflected as defendants in the caption in this matter. The undersigned will order that the Plaintiffs advise the Court as to whether or not service has been obtained on the defendants named above and if so, the Plaintiffs shall further respond as to why they have not filed motions for entry of default against those defendants. The Plaintiffs will further be required to file an amended caption showing all active parties-defendant in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED the Plaintiffs, on or before September 6, 2013 shall advise the Court as to whether or not service has been obtained on the defendants named above. The Plaintiffs shall further respond as to why they have not filed motions for entry of default against those defendants and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs file an amended caption showing all active parties-defendant in this matter.
Source: Leagle
