From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Rai

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 19, 2015
2:13-cv-2535-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)

Opinion


JULIE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. RANJIT K. RAI, STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-2535-TLN-EFB United States District Court, E.D. California. March 19, 2015

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         On June 5, 2014, plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment against defendant Ranjit Rai, and noticed the motion for hearing before the assigned district judge. ECF No. 9. The district judge vacated the hearing and directed plaintiff to notice her motion for hearing before the undersigned as required by Local Rule 302(c)(19). ECF No. 10. To date, plaintiff has not re-noticed the motion, or otherwise responded to the minute order. Given that more than seven months have passed since the hearing was vacated, it appears that plaintiff is no longer interested in litigating her motion. Accordingly, the motion (ECF No. 9) is denied without prejudice.


Summaries of

Brown v. Rai

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 19, 2015
2:13-cv-2535-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Brown v. Rai

Case Details

Full title:JULIE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. RANJIT K. RAI, STARBUCKS CORPORATION…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 19, 2015

Citations

2:13-cv-2535-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015)